UC-NRLF 

lllillilllllll  III  II    nil  MM  II    lill|ili|i 


^B    2fl    Tbl 


A  FUTURE  LIFE? 


SINGLETON  W.  DAVIS 


^■^•'^ 


LIBRARY 


University  of  California, 

GIFT  OF" 


Class     ^  oH  ^ 


^1 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/futurelifecriticOOdavirich 


SiiS^aLKTOK  Waters  IJavis 


A^  Future  Life  ? 


A  Critical  Inquiry  estto  the  SciEis^TrPic 
Value  of  the  Alleged  Evideis^ces 

THAT    MAX'S    CO^S^SCIOUS   FeR- 

sois^ALiTY  Survives  the 
Life  of  the  Body 

EMBRACING 

A  DISCUSSION  OF  THE  DOCTRINES  OF  RESURRECTION 

OF   THE  BODY,  RE-INCARNATION,  SPIRITISM, 

ANNIHILATION.  THEORIES  OF  META- 

PHYSICIANS,  PHENOMENA  OF 

SPIRITUAUSM,   ETC. 

BY 

SiXGLETON  T^ATERS    DAVIS,  M.  H. 

Author  of  '^he  Scientific  T)ispensation  of  a  New  T^eligion, 
Editor  of  ^he  Humanitarian  T^eview,  etc. 


OP  THE     ^ 

^'NIVERSITY 

OF 
£dL'FORM\ba 


LOS  ANGELES,  CAL.: 

HUMANITARIAN  REVIEW  PUBLISHING  HOUSE 

No.  854  E.  LEE  ST. 

1907. 


#TT  To  the  Genius  of  Science,  calm  and  brave,  who, 
^  holding  high  the  Torch  of  Reason,  ascends  the 
Heights  of  Knowledge  on  the  Stepping-stones  of 
Solid  Facts  to  the  Bleizing  Temple  of  Wisdom  built 
upon  the  Eternal  Rock  of  Truth,  this  Book  is  reveren- 
tially Dedicated  by  Her  faithful  disciple. 

The  Author. 


m 


PREFACE. 

^  In  my  position  as  editor  of  "  The  Humanitarian 
Review" — a  magazine  professedly  "devoted  to  the 
study  of  [among  other  things]  mind  and  psychic 
phenomena"- — I  had  been  often  asked  by  correspond- 
ents to  state  my  "belief,"  or  my  opinion,  as  to  the 
existence  of  a  human  "  spirit "  entity  and  of  a  "  future 
life"  after  death.  But,  considering  mere  belief  and 
opinions  of  little  importance,  I  preferred  not  to  pub- 
lish any  response  until  1  could  have  time  to  make  a 
deliberate,  well-considered,  comprehensive  statement 
of  the  facts  and  principles  upon  which  my  belief  and 
opinions  rest,  as  of  immeasurably  more  importance 
to  others  than  such  belief  and  opinions  themselves. 
At  length  the  resquests  seemed  to  merge  into  de- 
mands, and  I  decided  to  publish  a  short  series  of 
articles,  in  response,  in  "  The  Review^,"  but  not  so 
comprehensive  in  scope  and  minute  in  details,  be- 
cause of  limited  space  in  the  magcizine,  as  the  impor- 
tance of  the  subject  really  deserved. 

^  The  First  Paper  of  the  series  w^as  printed  in  "The 
Review"  of  May,  1906,  with  the  intention  of  limiting 
the  series  to  the  monthly  issues  of  that  year,  but  the 
papers  were  so  well  received  from  the  very  first  that 
I  concluded  to  modify  my  plan  so  as  to  extend  the 
series  some  three  months  longer.  And  in  reponse  to 
requests  and  suggestions  of  many  approving  readers, 
I  decided  to  issue  the  series  in  "pamphlet  form"  as 
soon  as  through  the  magazine.  But,  as  each  suc- 
ceeding paper  appeared,  the  interest  of  readers  be- 
came more  and  more  general  and  intense — as  inferred 
from  letters  from  "Review"  correspondents. 

^  This  enthusiastic  interest  of  readers  in  the  discus- 
sion of  course  affected  the  author,  and  I  again  modi- 

(lii) 


15H192 


iv  A   FUTURE  LIFE? 

fied  my  plans  so  as  to  make  the  articles  more  elabo- 
rate in  detail,  broader  in  scope  and  extended  in  num- 
ber, so  that  instead  of  the  series  ending  in  the  maga- 
zine of  December,  1 906,  as  first  planned,  the  articles 
were  made  longer  and  continued  into  the  number 
for  August,  1907.  This  seemed  to  make  neces- 
sary a  change  of  my  intention  of  printing  a  pam- 
phlet edition  to  a  decision  to  publish  the  complete 
series  in  a  cloth-bound  book.  And  I  hope  readers 
will  be  pleased  to  have  the  work  thus  given  a  more 
elegant  and  durable  dress. 

fl  These  several  changes  of  plan  while  the  papers  were 
in  process  of  publication  have  left  their  marks  upon 
the  work  as  a  whole,  in  the  way  of  repetitions,  rever- 
sions, want  of  symmetry,  etc.  These  defects  would 
probably  have  been  to  a  great  extent  avoided,  could 
I  have  planned  the  work  originally  to  be  so  elaborate 
and  extended.  Some  other  things  which  mar  the 
work  somewhat,  such  as  typographical  errors,  crude- 
ness  of  expression,  etc.,  might  have  been  measurably 
less  had  not  my  labor  as  editor,  publisher  and  printer 
of  "The  Review"  been  so  very  exacting  of  my  time 
and  physical  strength. 

^  As  for  the  facts  and  principles  brought  forward  in 
the  work,  I  have  been  scrupulously  careful  to  state 
them  in  the  clearest,  strongest,  least  ambiguous  words 
and  phraseology  I  could  select,  and  the  reasoning  I 
have  conscientiously  endeavored  to  make  rigorously 
logical,  wholly  regardless  of  results  as  to  my  desires 
and  cherished  preconceptions.  If  you,  reader,  can 
peruse  its  pages  in  a  similar  frame  of  mind,  you  will 
enjoy  the  reading  of  them  as  I  have  intensely  enjoyed 
— not  writing,  but — putting  them  into  type  direct 
from  my  mind.  SINGLETON  W.   DAVIS. 

Lx»  Angeles.  July  22,   1907. 


COiS^TENTS 


CHAPTER  I.— INTRODUCTORY. 


Section  1,  A  Childish  Delusion.  2,  The  Real  Question.  3,  Three  Theo- 
ries of  a  Future  Life.  4,  Of  What  does  the  Human  Body  Consist  ?  5,  Ul- 
timate Constituents  of  the  Body.  6,  Mind,  Soul,  Spirit— What  ?  7,  Per- 
sonality—The Ego.  8,  Indestructibility  of  Matter  and  Motion.  9,  Trans- 
mutation of  Complex  Substances.     10,  Death.         -  -  -        9-21 


CHAPTER  II.— THE  RESURRECTION  THEORY. 

Section  11,  Origin  of  the  Theory.  12,  Christian  Doctrine  of  Egyptian  Or- 
igin. 13,  A  Revelation  by  the  Sun-God.  14,  The  Bodv  Transformed. 
15,  Relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Resurrection.  16,  The  "New  Theology" 
Theories.  17,  Science  Dispels  the  Illusion.  18,  A  Paradoxical  Immor- 
tality.    19,  Material  Basis  of  the  Theory's  Origin.  -  -  22-32 


CHAPTER  III.— RE-INCARNATION— METEMPSYCHOSIS- 
TRANSMIGRATION  OF  SOULS. 

Section    20,   Obscure  Terminology'.       21,   Various  Aspects  of  the  Theory. 
22,  Origin  of  the  Doctrine.     23,  The  Theosophic  View.     24.  "Supports" 

of  the  Theosophic  Theory.      25;  A  Self-Defeating  Scheme.      26,  A  Non- 

^^^  Consoling  Hope— A  Frigid  Heaven.       27,   Buddhism  and  Re-incarnation. 

^^H  28,  A  Real,  Scientific  Re-incarnation.     29,  Huxley  on  the  Reality.    33-41 

f 


CHAPTER  IV.— SPIRITISTIC  HYPOTHESES. 

Section  30,  Terms  Defined.  31,  Is  Man  a  Duad?  32,  Revelation  as  Evi- 
dence. 33,  Spiritism  of  the  New  Testament.  34,  Worthless  as  Evidence. 
35,  Universality  of  Belief  in  Spirits  no  Evidence.  -  -  42-52 


CHAPTER  v.— SPIRITISM  AS  A  WORKING  HYPOTHESIS. 


Section  36,  I^  the  Spiritistic  Hypothesis  Necessary?  37,  Determinism. 
38,  Is  Spirit  Necessary  to  Initiate  Motion?  39,  The  Law  of  Unity.  40. 
Spiritism  and  Occultism  ------        53-64 

(v) 


vi  A   FUTURE  UFK? 


CHAPTER  VI.  — "SCIENTIFIC  ARGUMENTS"  CRITICISED. 

Section  41,  The  Mechanical  Hypothesis,  42,  Monistic  View  of  the  Mechan- 
ical Theory.  43,  Haeckel  on  the  Soul  and  Immortality.  44,  Dualistic 
View  of  the  Mechanical  Theory.  45,  The  Argument  by  Analysis.  46,  The 
Synthethical  Experiment.     47,  Another  Analogy  Argument.        -        62-76 


CHAPTER  VII.— NEW-THOUGHT  THEORIES  OF  THE 

SOUL  AND  A  FUTURE  LIFE. 

Section  48,  What  Is  "New  Thought"  ?     49,  Dr.   Hudson's  Hypotheses. 

DR.  Hudson's  hypotheses  critically  examined. 

50,  Has  Man  Two  Minds?  51,  Another  Sandy  Foundation,  52,  Man  has 
Two  Minds  is  "Assumed."  53,  Finite  Mind  Controls  the  Infinite  Soul ! 
54,  The  "Infinite"  has  Limitations  !  55,  Is  the  Subjective  Mind  a  Distinct 
Entity?  56,  Eureka!  "  It  Is  the  Soul ! "  57,  A  Fatal  Admission.  58, 
Subjective  Mind  "of  the  Earth  Earthy."  59,  A  Final  Assumption.     77-92 

CHAPTER  VIII.— DOES  SPIRITUALISM  DEMONSTRATE  A 
FUTURE    LIFE? 

Section  60,  Essential  Qualifications  of  a  Critic.  61,  Some  Credentials  of 
the  Writer.  62,  Some  Psychic  Experiences.  63,  Studies  of  "Spiritual 
Phenomena. ' '  (The  Author' s  personal  experience  and  investigation. )  64, 
Results  of  the  Investigation.  65,  A  Remarkable  Platform  Test.  66,  A 
Stumbling-block  Removed.  67,' An  Objection  Answered.  68,  A  Curious 
Scientific  Demonstration.  .  .  .  .  .  93-112 


CHAPTER  IX.— ON  THE  SO-CALLED   PHILOSOPHY  OF  A 
FUTURE    LIFE. 

Section  69,  Deductive  Reasoning  as  a  Means  of  Proof.  70,  Consensus  of 
the  World.  71,  The  Desire  for  Immortality.  72,  Necessary  to  Complete- 
ness. 73,  "The  Law  of  Compensation  Demands  It."  74,  The  Doctrine 
Good— True  or  False.     75,  Kindness  Sometimes  Causes  Pain.    -     113-128 


CHAPTER  X.— THE  QUESTION  OF  A  FUTURE  LIFE  FROM 
THE    SCIENTIFIC   STANDPOINT. 

Section  76,  Introductory— The  Status  of  Science. 

PART   I. — FROM   THE   MECHANICAL   POINT   OF   VIEW. 
77,  The  Anatomical  Mechanism.    7^,  What  Operates  these  Machines?    79, 


CONTENTS 


Vll 


Illustrations  from  Inanimate  Xature.  80,  The  Conclusion  from  Facts  of 
Physics. 

PART   II. — FROM    THE    CHEMICAL    POINT    OF   VIEW, 

81,  Chemical  Constituency.  82,  The  Law  of  Change.  83,  Man  Chiefly 
Water.     84,  Chemistry  of  the  Plasma.     85,  The  Verdict  of  Chemistry. 

PART   III. — FROM   THE    PHYSIOLOGICAL    POINT   OF   VIEW. 

86,  Nature  of  Physiological  Function.  87,  Physiological  Automatism.  88, 
The  Physiological  Ultimate.     89,  Does  the  Brain  Think  ? 

PART   IV. — FROM   THE    PSYCHOLOGICAL   POINT   OF   VIEW. 

90,  What  Is  Psychology?  91,  The  Substance  of  Mind  or  Soul.  92,  Psy- 
chic Revelations  93,  Knocking  Down  a  "Man  of  Straw."  94,  Another 
Baseless  Objection.         -----  129-156 


CHAPTER  XL— SOME  MISCELLANEOUS  MATTERS. 

Section  95,  "Weighing  the  Soul."     %,  The  Evasive  Explanation.      97, 
The  Agnostic  View.    98,  Psychic  Research  Society's  Conclusion.     157-166 


CHAPTER  XII.— RECAPITULATION  AND  CONCLUSION. 
Section  99,  Recapitulation.     100,  Conclusion.         -  -  -  167-168 


:rsity 


A  FUTURE  LIFE? 


CHAPTER  I. 


IJN^TRODtJCTORY. 


§  1. — A   CHILDISH   DELUSION. 

MAN,  in  his  natural  egfotism,  has  assumed  that 
he  is  of  supreme  importance  in  the  infinite  uni- 
verse ;  that  the  gods  or  a  god,  or  an  immanent  intelli- 
grence  and  beneficence,  planned,  built  and  set  in  motion 
the  almighty  cosmos  of  matter,  from  the  less  than  micro- 
scopic indivisible  atom  to  the  grandest  sun  in  all  of  the 
galax3"  of  the  stars,  with  the  prime  object  and  purpose 
of  subservienc_v  to  him;  that  "while  all  things  shall  pass 
awa)^"  into  eternal  nothingness,  he  alone  of  all  created 
things  and  beings,  in  some  state,  shall  live  forever! 

But,  though  his  egotism  is  '* monumental  "  and  his  con- 
ceptions of  his  environment  and  the  cosmic  order  are  ex- 
tremeh^  childish  when  viewed  from  a  scientific  standpoint, 
we  shall  not  berate  him,  or  censure  him,  or  cast  him  down 
from  his  real  altitude  in  the  scale  of  nature;  for  from  this 
same  scientific  view-point  we  see  that  in  intellectual  de- 
velopment he  is  a  child  and  must  think  in  childish  terms, 
and  that  his  conceptions  are  the  natural  and  legitimate 
productions  of  his  organism  and  its  inheritance  and  envi- 
ronment.   We  see  an  infant  tr^-  to  pick  up  a  sunbeam,  or 


10  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

to  grasp  a  beautiful  butterfly  far  above  the  reach  of  its 
little  arm,  but  we  do  not  reproach  it  or  ridicule  .  ;  we 
but  smile  and  caress  it,  and  wonder  at  its  ingenuosness. 
So  reader,  while  you  read  these  pages,  and  feela  tempta- 
tion to  be  harshly  critical  and  censorious  of  this  writer, 
please  keep  in  mind  not  only  that  the  race  is  intellectu- 
ally a  family  of  children,  but  that  I  who  write  (with  the 
printer's  pencil — metal  type)  am  one  of  that  family,  and 
do  not  presume  to  profess  that  T  have  reached  intellectual 
manhood  while  all  my  brothers  and  sisters  are  yet  little 
children;  I  claim  only  to  have  reached  the  top  of  a  little 
hill  on  my  path  of  life  which  seems  to  afford  me  some- 
what of  a  vantage  over  sonie^  at  least,  of  my  "fellow- 
travelers  in  this  vale  of"  mirages,  as  to  point  of  view. 

§  2. — THE   REAL   QUESTION. 

When  the  sincere  but  simple-minded  child  of  the  soil, 
or  the  sage  of  the  g'reat  university,  asks,  "If  a  man  die, 
shall  he  live  again?"  we  should  not  answer  dogmatically, 
nor  by  a  mere  "play  upon  words,"  as  is  almost  if  not  quite 
always  done;  and  so  believing",  I  herein  shall  try  to  say 
exactly  what  I  mean  ^  and  hope  that  the  reader  will  accept 
what  I  sa}^  as  "bread,"  not  "a  stone" — as  sincere  expres- 
sion ;  and  I  shall  try  to  present  that  which  I  conceive  to 
be  the  truth,  not  on  the  ground  that  it  is  the  truth  be- 
cause I  believe  it  is,  or  sa)^  it  is,  but  because  it  is  affirmed 
by  i\\^  facts  of  nature  which  I  shall  cite  as  evidence. 

What  is  the  r^«/ question?  It  is  not  as  to  the  mere  re- 
suscitation of  the  body  or  of  the  mind  or  "soul,"  after 
the  event  we  call  death,  but  it  is  this:  Does  the  human 
i>erso7iality  continue  to  exist  after  death?  That  is,  is  there 
a  tomorrow  to  this  life  considered  as  today  and  death  as 
its  night?   If  this  life  is  a  summer-time  and  death  a  win- 


INTRODUCTORY. 


11 


ter,  will  that  winter  end  and  we  enter  upon  another  sum- 
mer, or  another  da3^  full}'  conscious  of  our  life's  former 
summer,  or  of  its  3"esterday?  Shall  we  awaken  after  death 
with  the  knowledg"e  that  we  lived  before  death,  and  with 
remembrance  of  the  events  and  associations  of  that  pre- 
vious life,  as  we  maj"  awake  tomorrow  morning  with  the 
life  of  today  not  only  remembered  but  with  consciousness 
of  identity  and  continuity  of  personality?  Any  other 
kind  of  a  "future  life"  would  practically  be  the  life  of  an- 
other being-,  and  of  no  more  interest  to  us  now  than  is 
that  of  the  earth-life  of  a  person  who  is  to  be  born  a  thou- 
sand years  hence. 

§  3. — THREE   THEORIES   OF   A   FUTURE   LIFE. 

There  are  in  existence  now  and  have  been  for  thousands 
of  years,  three  principal  and  quite  distinct  theories  of  a 
future  life,  or  continuity  of  life  after  death.  These  are  : 

{a)  The  material  bod)^  may  pass  directly  out  of  this 
world  into  another  without  death,  in  exceptional  cases, 
or  it  ma}'  die  and  at  some  future  time  be  resurrected  and 
then  pass  into  another  world,  and  there  live  forever.  For 
convenience,  I  shall  call  this  the  Resicrrection  Theory. 

(b)  The  '^spirit"  or  the  ^'soul"  leaves  the  body  at  the 
death  of  the  latter  and  enters  upon  another  life  in  the 
body  of  another  parentage,  human  or  animal.  This,  I 
call  the  Re-incarnation  Theory^ — although  there  are  two 
phases  of  it :  the  notion  of  transmigration  and  that  of  re- 
incarnation proper. 

(<:)  The  body  at  death  passes  to  final  dissolution  while 
the  "soul"  or  "spirit,"  the  e^o  or  personality,  passes  into 
another  state  of  conscious  existence,  there,  or  in  succeed- 
ing states,  to  continue  forever.  This,  in  all  of  its  varia- 
tions, I  shall  call  the  Sfiritistic  Theory. 


12  A   FUTURE  LIFE? 

(x)  As  opposed  to  each  and  all  of  these  theories  of  a 
future  life,  is  the  theory  that  the  phenomena  of  life,  inclu- 
ding" mind  or  thougrht,  emotion,  etc.,  are  the  products  of 
the  nervous  tissues  and  organs  of  the  living-  body,  and  as 
such,  cease  at  the  death  of  the  body;  consciousness  and 
personality  being  the  result  of  the  correlative  and  con- 
current activities  of  the  organism,  they  become  extinct  at 
death.     This,  I  shall  call  the  Monistic  Theory. 

In  this  discussion  of  the  question  of  a  future  life  I  shall 
take  up  the  above  four  principal  propositions  in  the  order 
there  indicated  b}^  letters,  and  devote  a  chapter  to  each. 
But  before  proceeding  to  discuss  these  theories,  I  will 
briefly  consider  a  few  fundamental  facts  of  biological 
science  which  I  think  must  be  relied  upon  as  a  basis  for 
intelligent  inquiry  into  the  merits  and  demerits  of  these 
theories — a  solid  foundation  for  a  carefully-built  super- 
structure— a  firm  fulcrum  for  the  sure  support  of  an  effec- 
tive lever  of  logical  reasoning,  iconoclastic  and  construc- 
tive.    To  this  end  let  us  first  inquire, 

§  4. — OF    WHAT   DOES    THR    HUMAN    BODY    CONSIST? 

The  most  apparent  fact  as  to  the  structure  of  the  hu- 
man body  is  that  it  consists  of  a  multiplicity  of  parts  so 
joined  together  and  inter-related  that  while  each  does  its 
own  peculiar  duty,  to  which  it  is  specifically  adapted, 
they  all  act  for  the  common  welfare.  The  action  of  the 
lungs  in  supplying  the  oxygen  to  the  blood  and  ejecting 
the  carbon  from  the  vital  domain,  is  absolutely  essential 
to  the  life  and  integrity  of  every  other  part,  organ  or  tis- 
sue; the  action  of  the  heart  and  blood-vessels  is  indispen- 
sable to  each  and  every  part;  the  brain  and  sense-motor 
nerves  contribute  not  alone  to  their  own  welfare,  but  to 
that  of  the  entire  body.    It  may  be  stated  as  a  biological 


INTRODUCTORY.  13 

law,  that  Each  fart  of  the  human  body  acts  for  the  good 

of  the  whole.     And  it  is  this  essential  co-operation  of  its 

various  and  ver}^  dissimilar  parts — tissues  and  organs — 

that  constitutes  the  whole  an  Indvidual — an  indivisible 

unit.  '* But, "says  one.  "there  are  certain  parts  or  org-ans 
whose  functions  are  intended  not  for  the  g-ood  of  the  in- 
dividual of  whom  they  are  parts,  but  for  the  production 
of  prog"en3^  and  its  sustenance  in  infanc3^  and  this  seems 
to  prove  that  your  'law'  is  not  a  g-eneral  law." 

Your  view  is  not  broad  enoug^h.  The  individual  is  it- 
self a  part  of  a  g-reater  Individual — the  race.  Humanity. 
It  is  this  larg-er  individual  to  which  the  last  word  in  the 
above  statement  of  the  law,  "the  whole,"  applies.  It  is 
these  propagating-  organs  of  the  lesser  individuals  which 
materialh^  or  corporeally  unite  them  togrether  to  consti- 
tute the  gfreater  individual,  making-  a  material  solidarity 
of  the  race.  But  more  :  The  human  bod}^  is  itself  but  a 
community  of  very  small  individuals,  called  cells,  each  of 
which  is  born,  lives,  propag-ates  others  of  its  kind,  acts 
in  g-eneral  for  the  gfood  of  the  whole  communit}'^  of  cells, 
the  human  body,  and  at  leng-th  dies  and  is  dissolved.  A 
man,  then,  is  a  compound  individual,  a  community  of  in- 
dividuals^ a  microcosm  of  cells  as  the  race  is  a  macrocosm 
of  men.    This  is  what  the  human  bod3"  is,  org-anicallv. 

§  5. — ULTIMATE   CONSTITUENTS   OF   THE   BODY. 

But  this  is  not  the  last  analysis.  The  cells  themselves 
are  complex;  all  of  the  living- tissues  are  compounds  of 
well-known  simple  chemical  elements.  Strictly  speak- 
ing-, the  earth's  surface  is  at  the  top  of  the  sky,  for  our 
atmosphere  is  just  as  properh^  a  part  of  the  g-lobe  as  is 
the  ocean.  The  earth,  then,  is  about  three-fourths  air 
and  water.  The  elements  that  principalh^  contstitute  the 
mechanical  mixture  forming:  the  atmosphere  are  oxj^g-en 


14  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

and  nitrog-en;  and  the  elements  constitutinig-  the  chemical 
compound  called  water  are  oxyufen  and  hydrog-en.  Be- 
sides, these  three  elements  are  constituents  of  very  much 
of  the  solid  portion  of  the  globe,  so  that  the  earth  is  ap- 
proximately four-fifths  ox3^g-en,  hydrog"en  and  nitrogen, 
thoug-h  carbon  is  one  of  its  most  important  constituents, 
and  some  sixty  other  elements,  enter  more  or  less  into 
its  composition. 

Now,  it  is  a  somewhat  curious  fact  that  this  statement 
of  the  earth's  chemical  constituency  is  almost  exactly 
true  of  the  human  body!  A  man,  chemically,  is  almost 
wholly  constituted  of  oxygen,  hydrogen,  nitrogen  and 
carbon,  with  comparatively  small  quantities  of  a  number 
of  other  chemical  elements,  as  calcium  (lime),  phospho- 
rus, sodium,  iron,  etc.  The  constituenc}^  of  the  human 
body  resembles  that  of  the  earth  in  another  way:  like 
the  earth,  the  bod}^  is  chieily  water,  and  it  is  surrounded 
with  atmospheric  air,  like  the  bod}^  of  the  earth,  which 
is  not  only  indispensable  as  breath,  but  equally  so  as  a 
means  of  proper  surface  fressure,  for  without  this  pres- 
sure no  human  being  could  live  a  single  moment. 

The  human  body,  then,  is  an  epitome  of  the  earth,  and 
another  curious  fact  is,  that  this  identity  of  constituency 
of  a  man  and  the  earth  was  probably  known  by  the  in- 
habitants of  the  valleys  of  the  Nile  and  of  the  Tigris  and 
Euphrates  more  than  ten  thousand  years  ago,  and  possi- 
bly more  than  twenty  thousand.  Their  traditions  and 
the  oldest  tablet  writings  and  temple  inscriptions  teach 
us  that  they  believed  that  the  gods  made  man  of  clay,  as 
a  potter  moulds  his  handiwork;  and  in  Genesis  we  are 
told  that  the  ''  man"  created  "in  the  beginning"  was  by 
Elohim  (the  gods)  called  Adam,  which  means  earth,  or 


INTRODUCTORY.  15 

"red  earth,"  that  is,  earth  void  of  veg^etation — cla3^  But 
in  making-  this  reference  to  Genesis  I  do  not  mean  to  con- 
vey- the  idea  that  I  believe  man  learned  of  this  similarit)" 
of  the  human  bod}^  to  the  earth  in  a  supernatural  manner, 
but  that  probabl)^  there  existed  a  prehistoric  civilization 
in  which  science  was  broug-ht  to  a  high  state  of  perfec- 
tion, and  that  these  records  made  in  a  later  ag-e  are  but 
fossils — the  deca3-ing-  remains  of  real  science  deg-enerated 
into  superstition  along-  with  natural  deca}^  of  the  race  or 
peoples  who  developed  it  and  then,  having-  reached  the 
noonda}^  of  human  developmentabilit}^  (to  coin  a  needed 
word),  went  down  to  the  evening-  when  their  sun  of  sci- 
ence set  and  the  long:  nigfht  of  an  ag^e  of  superstition  suc- 
ceeded. That  astronomy  ag-es  ag-o  was  a  science  is  shown 
by  Sir  Norman  Lockyer,  and  I  believe  the  Ptolemaic  sys- 
tem was  but  an  imperfect  fossil  of  a  far  more  ancient  sci- 
entific astronomy, 

This  reference  to  the  ancient  ideas  is  not  a  digression, 
for  I  expect  to  show  later  in  this  discussion  that  modern 
notions  of  re-incarnation  and  the  resurrurection  of  the 
body  are  but  thought  fossils,  or  deg-enerate  very  ancient 
scientific  knowledg-e  of  the  chemical  constituenc}^  of  the 
body  and  of  the  earth,  and  of  the  transmig-rations  of 
the  chemical  elements  throug-h  numberless  successive 
bodies,  as  our  chemistry  and  physiolog}^  of  toda)^  demon- 
trates,  and  of  the  astronomical  movements  and  cycles. 

§  6. —  MIND,  SOUL,  SPIKIT— WHAT? 

A  larg-e  majority  of  intelligent,  educated  people  think 
of  a  man  as  a  dualit}'  or  a  trinit}',  while  a  very  respecta- 
ble minority,  many  of  them  advanced  scientists,  believe 
that  a  man  is  really  an  *'indivadual."  The  former  believe 
a  man  consists  of  a  material  body  inhabited  by  an  imma- 


16  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

terial  something-,  by  some  called  "soul"  or  "spirit,"  and 
by  others  "mind,"  considered  as  an  entit3%  while  others 
think  mind  and  soul  or  spirit  are  not  the  same  thing:,  and 
some  believe  soul  and  spirit  are  not  the  same. 

The  orig-inal  notion  of  spirit  seems  to  have  been  that 
-which  causes  move?7tent,  and  with  that  notion  was  the  be- 
lief that  matter  in  and  of  itself  was  "dead" — incapable 
of  moving-.  When  the  wind  does  not  blow,  the  tree  stands 
apparently  motionless,  the  dry  leaves  lie  still  upon  the 
g-round,  the  sea  is  placid ;  and  when  no  air  as  breath  en- 
ters the  nostrils  of  man  or  beast  they  lie  motionless  in 
death.  The  word  spirit  is  from  a  Greek  word  meaning 
air,  wind  or  breath — whence  our  word  inspire,  to  take  in 
breath.  So  the  writer  of  Genesis  said:  "And  the  Lord 
God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  g-round,  and  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life;  and  man  became  a 
living  56>?//."  (ii:7.)  He  says,  "the  spirit  of  God  moved 
upon  the  face  of  the  waters,"  meaning-,  orig-inally,  that 
when  "the  earth  was  without  form,  and  void,  and  dark- 
ness was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep,"  mighty  winds  swept 
over  "the  face  of  the  waters"  and  so  added  to  the  weird 
disorder  of  the  primeval  chaos.  And  so  of  other  ancient 
writings  and  inscriptions. 

Graduall}^  in  the  course  of  thousands  of  j^ears,  this 
purely  materialistic  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  cause 
of  movement,  "spirit"  of  the  spiritists  and  "force "of  the 
physicists,  has  to  some  extent  been  supplanted  by  a  hazy 
conception  of  an  indefinable  "immaterial"  entity  "back 
of  matter,"  or  "behind"  it,  or  "within"  it,  which  is  as- 
sigrned  as  the  cause  of  motion  or  action  (phenomena), — 
on  the  one  hand  called  the  "spirit"  of  man  and  the  "God" 
of  nature,  on  the  other,  called  "  vitality"  and  the  "forces 


INTRODUCTORY.  17 

of  nature."  Even  so,  we  still  frequenth'  hear  and  read  of 
spirit  as  "a  finer  state  of  matter,"  a  thing-  capable  of  re- 
flecting- light  so  as  to  be  seen  or  photographed,  and  of 
the  '*vital  fluid,"  ''nervous  fluid,"  ''electric  fluid,"  and 
even  of  the  "dissipation"  of  light  and  heat  into  absolute 
vacuity  of  space,  just  as  though  these  "modes  of  motion" 
were  rarefied  matter  like  the  water  in  evaporation  being- 
"dissipated"  from  the  sea  into  the  atmosphere!  Such  no- 
tions I  venture  to  call  ridiculousl)^  crude,  though  in  many 
cases  reputed  scientists  still  entertain  them. 

Some  people  use  the  word  spirit  as  synonymous  with 
mind,  while  others  speak  of  "mortal  mind"  as  being:  far 
inferior  to  spirit:  and  some  use  the  words  soul  and  spirit 
as  S3"non3'mous,  while  others  think  the  soul  and  the  spirit 
are  two  quite  distinct  entities.  But  while  everj^one  knows 
what  is  meant  by  the  word  mind,  the  words  spirit  and 
soul  convey  to  no  one  a  clear  idea  of  what  is  meant  by  the 
speaker  or  writer  who  uses  them.  Yet,  I  shall  use  these 
terms  in  this  discussion,  but  with  the  understanding- that 
each  reader  is  free  to  giv^e  them  his  own  interpretation. 

§  7. — PEKSONALITY — THE   EGO. 

In  an3^  discussion  of  an}-  theory  of  a  future  life,  it  is 
essential  that  we  have  a  clear  idea  of  what  constitiutes 
personality,  for,  as  was  shown  in  §2,  3.r\j  future  existence 
which  is  not  either  a  continuance  or  a  resumption  of  the 
personalitj"  after  death,  is  of  no  practical  or  personal  in- 
terest to  us.  What  is  it,  then,  that  is  represented  by  / 
and  me?  We  have  seen  (§4)  that  a  man  is  a  community 
of  lesser  individuals,  all,  in  general,  contributing-  to  the 
common  welfare.  This  unity  of  motive  and  action  forms 
a  soldarity  that  is  the  basis  of  personality,  but  something 
is  needed  to  complete  the  personality,  and  that  is  a  brain 


•.  >' 


18  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

center  in  which  all  of  the  constituents  of  such  communit)^ 
mergre  their  individualities  into  a  common  unit.  To  illus- 
trate :  The  two  e^^es  each  receive  a  distinct  and  slightly 
different  imag-e  of  an  object  upon  the  retina,  but  the  op- 
tic nerves  from  both  retinas  intermingfle  the  little  strands 
of  which  they  are  composed  so  completely  between  the 
eyes  and  the  vsig-ht  center  in  the  brain  that  the  two  im- 
agoes are  there  mergred  into  one,  and  we  "see  sing-le."  So 
must  be  mergfed  into  unity  all  of  the  components  of  the 
man,  which  is  done  by  the  whole  system  of  nerves  con- 
centrating- in  the  one  g-reat  merger,  the  brain  ;  and,  as 
the  action  of  the  two  eyes  is  mergfed  into  one  i)ercei>iio7i^ 
so  the  action  of  all  the  components  of  the  whole  body  is 
merg-ed  into  one  consciousness,  and  this  unity  and  con- 
sciousness of  it  constitutes  the  e^o,  the  -personality.  As 
long-  as  the  integrity  of  the  unitizing  nerves  and  great 
brain-center  is  maintained,  consciousness  and  personality 
continue  ;  otherwise  they  cannot,  and  universal  experi- 
ence and  observation  prove  to  the  common  sense  of  all 
that  this  is  true.  The  continuance  of  conscious  person- 
ality after  death  and  dissolution  of  the  body  can  be  con- 
ceived of  as  possible  only  upon  the  theory  that  the  mind, 
soul  or  spirit  is  an  entity  and  not  subject  to  the  physical 
and  chemical  laws  which  render  death  and  dissolution  of 
the  body  inevitable.  This  theory  will  be  quite  fully  dis- 
cussed in  the  chapters  on  re-incarnation  and  spiritism. 

§  8. — INDESTRUCTIBILITY   OF   MATTER    AND   MOTION. 

Modern  scientists  affirm  the  indestructibibility  of  mat- 
ter, althoug-h  the  proposition  does  not  admit  of  demon- 
stration. It  is  assumed  to  be  true  because  there  is  not  a 
sing-le  known  fact  against  it — not  an  ioto  of  matter  has 
ever  been  known  to  pass  from  existence  to  nothing-ness  ; 


INTRODUCTORY.  19 

and  the  human  mind  in  realit}^  is  incapable  of  conceiving- 
of  such  annihilation,  thoug-h  man}^  have  "believed"  that 
in  ordinary  fire  the  fuel  is  to  a  larg-e  extent  utterh^  anni- 
hilated. The  theolog-ical  notion  of  the  final  destruction 
of  the  world  b}^  fire  implies  that  "all  thing's  shall  pass" 
into  utter  nothingness,  but  the  modern  scientist  knows 
that  if  all  the  forests  upon  the  earth  and  all  the  coal  and 
oil  within  it  were  to  be  burned,  that  not  a  sing-le  g-rain  of 
their  elementary  constituents  would  be  destro3^ed.  This 
indestructibility  of  matter  is  often  cited  as  evidence  that 
man  is  immortal,  and  when  I  come  to  discuss  spiritism, 
in  another  chapter,  I  will  tr}^  to  show  the  fallacy  of  that 
argument.  Not  so  clearl}^  recog-nized  but  equallj"  true 
as  the  indestructibilit)^  of  matter,  is  the  persistence  of  mo- 
tion—  that  motion  cannot  be  annihilated,  but  assumes 
different  modes  under  var3nng:  conditions.  And  a  correl- 
ative proposition,  equally  true,  is  this:  that  neither  mat- 
ter nor  motion  is  ever  initiated — "created"  out  of  no- 
thing, but  that  the  precedent  of  everj^  new_/brw  of  mat- 
ter was  another  form,  and  of  every  new  mode  oi  motion 
was  another  mode.  The  connection  of  all  this  with  the 
question  of  a  future  life  ma}^  not  be  here  very  apparent  to 
the  reader,  but  its  relevancy  will  plainly  appear  later  on 
in  this  discussion. 

§  9. — TRANvSMUTATlON   OF   COMPLEX   SUBSTANCES. 

All  g-roups  or  bodies  of  matter  composed  of  two  or  more 
elements  chemically  combined,  and  all  masses  of  matter 
of  one  or  more  elements  mechanicalh^  maintained,  are 
unstable  and  more  or  less  ephemeral.  Incessant  chang-e  of 
relationship  of  the  simple  elements,  ultimate  particles 
and  masses  of  matter  is  the  order  of  the  universe,  and  it 
may  be  stated  as  a  g-eneral  truth  ("law"),  that  the  more 


20  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

comflex  the  mass  or  body,  the  less  stable  the  union  of  its  ele- 
ments. The  ultimate  indivisible  particle  of  the  simple 
chemical  element,  if  such  there  be,  is  the  only  thing-  in 
the  universe  which  is  absolutel}^  indestructible  and  eter- 
nal in  duration. 

§  10. — DEATH. 

What  is  death?  Some  quibblers  say  there  is  no  death; 
other  quibblers  say  all  matter  is  alive.  Both  take  un- 
warranted liberties  with  words.  A  gfrowing-  tree  is  live 
matter;  cut  down,  sawed  into  lumber  and  seasoned,  it  is 
dead  matter  ;  thoroug-hly  dissolved  by  decay,  it  is  neither 
alive  nor  dead.  The  skin  of  the  living-  ox  is  live  matter; 
the  leather  in  3^our  shoes  is  dead  matter;  the  iron  nails 
in  your  shoes  is  neither  living"  nor  nor  dead  matter.  It  is 
literally  true  that  "in  the  midst  of  life  we  are  in  death." 
With  the  first  breath  of  the  new-born  infant,  death  with- 
in its  little  body  beg-ins,  and  its  first  exhalation  carries 
out  a  portion  of  its  dead  body!  And  thence  on  death  is 
in  fellowship  with  life  until  the  last  breath  is  taken,  when 
death  is  supreme  and  life  is  naught.  It  is  this  incessant 
dying  of  the  little  ephemeral  individuals  of  the  human 
community — the  body,  that  supplies  the  power  of  living 
action,  and  causes  the  demand  for  food  and  drink  out  of 
which  to  build  new  cells  to  take  the  place  of  those  which 
die,  and  so  throug-h  every  moment  of  a  man's  lifetime  he 
is  dying-  and  throwing-  out  of  his  living:  body  of  one  mo- 
ment his  dead  body  of  the  moment  preceding-. 

What  becomes  of  this  matter  after  its  ejection  from  the 
body?  It  goes  to  help  fill  the  sea,  to  make  the  soil  of  the 
land;  to  the  sky  to  fall  again  as  rain;  to  the  atmosphere 
to  supply  it  with  carbon  and  nitrog-en — food  for  briars 
and  roses,  thistles  and  figs,  weeds  and  wheat;  and  then, 


INTRODUCTORY.  21 

food  for  worms  and  birds,  cattle  and — men!  Yes  we  are 
not  only  descendants  of  our  forefathers,  but  we  are  liter- 
ally, to  some  extent,  resurrections  and  re-carnations  oi  the 
elementary  matter  which  composed  their  bodies,  and  even 
our  own  of  past  years  and  of  yesterday !  But — does  con- 
scious personality  survive  the  final  death  of  the  body  ? 

This  question  will  be  discussed  in  succeeding"  chapters 
of  this  work,  but  it  is  not  the  author's  object  to  make  a 
direct  attempt  to  prove  that  man  is  destined  to  a  life  be- 
yond the  death  of  the  body,  nor  yet  that  he  is  not;  but, 
rather,  it  is  his  aim  to  give,  from  the  scientific  standpoint, 
a  comprehensive  survey  of  the  grounds  upon  which  the 
various  forms  of  belief  in  a  future  life  are  based.  If  the 
reader  finds  confirmation,  or  if  he  finds  refutation  herein, 
let  him  remember  that  this  author  did  not  create  the 
facts— he  only  tried  to  **hold  a  mirror  up  to  nature"  to 
truly  reflect  them. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  RESURRKCTIO]Nr  THEORY. 

§  11. — ORIGIN   OF   THE   THKORY. 

'*And  the  graves  were  opened;  and  many  bodies  of 
the  saints  which  slept  arose,  and  came  out  of  the  g^raves 
after  his  resurrection." — Matt.  xxvii:52-53. 

"Behold  my  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I  myself: 
handle  me,  and  see;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones, 
as  ye  see  me  have." — Luke  xxiv:39. 

WHKNCK  came  into  the  mind  of  man  the  notion 
that  after  the  death  of  his  body  he  should  some- 
time and  somewhere  resume  life  in  that  same  body? 

The  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body  is  older  than 
history,  almost  as  widespread  as  the  race  itself,  and  per- 
sists in  the  minds  of  millions  of  people  today  in  the  face 
of  modern  science.  Not  the  ignorant  and  simple-minded 
only  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  but  people 
who  have  brains  and  education — even  those  familiar  with 
science — many  of  them,  believe  in  it;  professors  in  our 
great  colleges  and  universities,  learned  authors,  priests, 
preachers,  kings,  popes,  and  presidents  of  the  United 
States,  believe  in  this  theory.  Why?  Because  it  is  ap- 
parently reasonable  and  is  supported  by  "authority." 

Here  is  the  logical  chain  that  binds  even  learned  men 
to  this  belief  :  The  Bible  is  the  infallible  word  of  an  om- 
niscient and  absolutely  truthful  being;  the  Bible  tells  us 
not  only  that  the  dead  body  shall  he  resurrected,  but  that 
many  dead  bodies  have  been  resurrected.     ''.See  the  New 


THE  RESURRECTION  THEORY.  23 

Testament  for  the  doctrine  and  accounts  of  the  "raising" 
of  Lazarus,"  the  coming"  up  of  "many "out  of  the  graves 
at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion,  and  especially  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body  of  Jesus  after  the  crucifixion.)  The  logic 
is  correct  as  to  the  deduction ;  but  is  the  major  premise 
true? — is  the  Bible  the  word  of  an  infallible  being?  Why 
do  learned  men  believe  it  is?  Because  they  are  hypnot- 
ized by  a  million-time  suggestion  from  infancy  to  old 
age.  Suggestion  rules  the  world  !  And  the  seed  of  sug- 
gestion is  repetition  and  the  "good  ground*'  in  which  it 
germinates  most  perfectly  is  childhood.  Suggestion  is  a 
mighty  god  whose  altar  is  "the  mother's  knee,"  whose 
temple  is  the  home  and  the  school  house  and  the  church; 
whose  priests  are  the  parents,  the  pedagogues  and  the 
preachers  ;  and  like  Jehovah,  he  often  puts  into  his  proph- 
ets a  "lying  spirit."  But  the  belief  in  the  resurrection 
is  not  of  Christian  origin. 

§  12. — CHRISTIAN   DOCTRINE   OF   EGYPTIAN   ORIGIN, 

The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  as  an  element  of  the 
Christian  religion  was  not  inherited  from  Judaism,  nor 
was  it  originated  by  Jesus,  the  evangelists,  or  the  other 
New  Testament  heroes  and  reputed  authors.  It  is  not 
an  Old  Testament  doctrine.  This  feature  of  Christianity, 
like  all  else  that  distinguishes  it  from  Judaism,  is  of  an- 
cient Eg)Ttian  origin,  modified  more  or  less  by  Grecian 
philosoph}^  and  poetry.  Take  the  Graeco-Egyptian  ele- 
ments out  of  Christianity,  the  residue  is  Judaism  ;  take 
awa)^  its  Judaistic  elements,  the  residue  is  Graeco-Egyp- 
tian  paganism.  Comparison  of  the  Judaistic,  Egj^ptian 
and  Greek  mj^thologies  with  the  the  Christian  doctrines, 
legends  and  rites,  demonstrates  this. 

Not  only  do  Egyptian  records  and  art  relics,  but  their 


24  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

custom  of  mummification,  prove  that  the  Egryptians  from 
pre-historic  times  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
Whence  or  how  did  they  g-et  the  idea  ? 

§  13. — A    REVEI.ATION   BY   THE   SUN-GOD. 

Analogfy  in  Eg"yptian  theolog-y  held  a  place  correspond- 
ing" to  induction  in  modern  science.  The  fundamental 
principles  or  premises  of  the  Eg:yptian  and  other  ancient 
mytholog-ies  are  these:  Man  is  an  epitome  of  the  universe; 
Human  life,  death  and  resurrection  is  an  analog-ue  of  the 
apparent  movement  of  the  sun  in  a  period  of  one  day  and 
nig-ht  and  of  one  solar  year;  The  sun  being-  an  anthropo- 
morphous g^od,  the  phenomena  of  his  daily  and  yearly 
birth  (at  sunrise  and  winter  solstice),  growth,  power  (at 
noon  and  summer  solstice),  decline,  death  (at  sunset  and 
autumnal  equinox),  and  resurrection  (at  sunrise  and  the 
vernal  equinox),  corresponds  to  a  human  life — and  thus 
the  sun-g-od  reveals,  by  analog-y,  that  man,  like  his  god, 
is  born,  lives,  dies  and  rises  agrain.  Hence,  even  now  the 
''evening:  of  life,"  the  ''winter"  and  "nig-ht  of  death,"  the 
"resurrection  w<?r;/,"  etc.,  are  common  expressions. 

Then,  the  phenomena  of  g-eneral  life  in  the  course  of  a 
year,  by  analog-y,  seemed  to  demonstrate  to  the  poetic 
Egfyptian  mind  the  truth  of  the  theory  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. In  the  spring-  Mother  Earth  gives  birth  to  a  new 
veg-etation;  the  flocks  of  the  shepherds  bring-  forth  their 
lambs  at  and  about  the  time  of  the  spring:  equinox; 
it  is  then  appears  the  new-born  ox  an  ass;  then  the  birds 
la}^  their  eg-g-s  and  the  birdling-s  are  born:  it  is  then  the 
honey-bees  swarm  out  and  start  new  families — then,  life 
is  born.  In  mid-summer  the  growth  of  vegetation  in  gen- 
eral has  grown  up  to  its  accustomed  limit,  and  in  autumn 
it  dies  and  the  seed  is  buried  in  the  ground,  and  the  ani- 


THE  RESURRECTION  THEORY.  25 

mal  world  as  to  its  activity  is,  metaphorically,  dead  and 
buried  in  the  grave  of  winter.  Then,  varying"  the  poetic 
fancy  (which  to  the  oriental  intellect  is  science),  when 
spring-  comes  again,  the  grave  of  winter  opens  and  all  life 
is  resurrected^  the  earth  is  decked  with  blossoms,  the  lord 
of  heaven,  the  sun,*' rises  again"  from  the  grave  below  the 
equator,  'tis  the  morning  of  the  new  year,  the  ''resurrec- 
tion morn,"  and  the  time  for  the  glad  Easter  festivall 

§  14. — THK   BODY  TRANSFORMED. 

Do  you  not  see  here  where  Paul  got  his  argument  for 
the  resurrection,  when  he  exclaims  in  confident  triumph 
that  the  new  plant  cannot  come  forth  unless  the  seed  first 
die?  And  here  he  got  his  idea  of  being  "raised  a  spirit- 
ual body,"  for  though  he  was  held  by  the  ancient  myth- 
philosophy  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
some  faint  rays  of  the  dawn  of  modern  science  showed 
him  that  the  new  plant  resurrected  was  not  actualh^  the 
identical  one  of  the  previous  year  from  which  it  sprang, 
and  to  maintain  his  argument  by  strict  analogy  he  was 
compelled  to  introduce  the  supplementary  theory^  of  the 
new  bod}^  He  had  no  conception  of  a  human  "spirit" 
or  "soul"  living  without  a  body  of  some  kind. 

§  15. — RELATION   OF   THE   SPIRIT   TO   THE   RESURRECTION. 

But  though  the  apostle  (extending  his  similitude)  says, 
"It  is  sown  a  natural  bod}^  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body. 
There  is  a  natural  body,  and  there  is  a  spirituarbody" 
(1.  Cor.  xv:44),  it  is  evident  from  his  attempted  explana- 
tion of  the  resurrection  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  1.  Cor- 
inthians that  he  believed  the  "spiritual  body"  was  the 
"natural  body"  transformed  at  the  time  of  its  resurrec- 
tion, and  the  "sowing"  of  the  body  was  essential  as  seed 


26  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 


(( 


bare  grain" — from  which  the  spiritual  body  as  a  new 
plant  should  be  ''raised."  In  this  statement  of  his  theory 
of  the  resurrection,  Paul  (or,  rather,  the  writer  of  the 
Pauline  epistles)  shows  plainly  the  combination  of  two 
more  ancient  orig-inal  elements  of  the  Christian  doctrine, 
the  Egryptian  and  the  Grecian. 

In  Egyptian  inscriptions  and  statuary  the  spirit  or  the 
"soul"  is  symbolized  by  a  wing-ed,  bird-like  form.  In 
some  of  the  tombs  have  been  found  statues  of  the  "soul" 
posed  as  if  keeping-  g"uard  over  the  mummj^  of  the  body 
which  it  occupied  before  death.  The  object  of  mummifi- 
cation and  this  g-uardianship  was  evidentl)^  to  make  sure 
that  the  soul  would  be  able  to  find  and  re-enter  its  bod}^ 
at  the  resurrection.  The  belief  of  certain  Christian  sects 
today  that  the  soul  remains  in  the  g-rave  with  the  body 
until  the  resurrection  is  undoubtedly,  I  think,  a  heritage 
of  the  old  pag-an  notion  symbolized  by  the  soul-bird  in 
the  tomb.  But  this  was  not  exactly  Paul's  theory.  The 
Greeks  likened  the  living"  body  to  the  larva  (caterpillar), 
the  dead  body  to  the  chrysalis  b^ing-  in  the  ground  during* 
winter,  and  the  soul  to  the  butterfly  that  is  resurrected 
from  the  chrysalis.  Indeed  the  ver}^  word  soul  in  Greek, 
-psyche^  is  literally  a  butterfl)^  The  larva  and  chrysalis 
correspond  to  Paul's  "natural  body"  and  the  butterfl}^  to 
his  "spiritual  body."  And  here  is  the  origin  of  the  Chris- 
tian notion  that  we  shall  have  wing-s  after  the  resurrec- 
tion !    , 

%  16. — THE    "new   theology"   THEORIES. 

The  influence  of  modern  science  has  affected  the  opin- 
ions of  many  of  the  more  intellig-ent,  learned,  progressive 
Christians  as  to  this  as  well  as  all  other  dogmas  of  their 
old  creeds,  and  the  representatives  of  what  is  sometimes 


THE  RESURRECTION  THEORY.  27 

called  the  new  theolog-y  are  attempting- to  "harmonize  sci- 
ence and  relig-ion"  as  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
b)"  putting"  a  "spiritual"  in  place  of  the  older  literal  inter- 
pretation of  the  New  Testament  declaration  on  the  sub- 
jects. These  new  explanations  are  theological  boomer- 
rangs  that  strike  back  at  the  entire  Christian  system, 
old  and  new,  by  exciting-  suspicion  in  the  minds  of  peo- 
ple both  in  and  out  of  the  churches  that  the  creeds  are 
unreliable  and  the  scriptures  they  puport  to  epitomize  are 
ambiguous  or  utterly  fallacious. 

Some  Christian  theolog-ians  tell  us  that  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  was  spiritual,  not  corporeal;  that  his  body 
did  not  literally  awaken  from  actual  death  and  ascend 
skyward  to  a  place  "  above"  the  earth.  And  yet  it  is  re- 
ported bv  the  Evangrelist  that  when  Jesus  "  appeared"  to 
his  disciples  they  "supposed  they  had  seen  a  spirit,"  and 
that  to  convince  them  that  it  was  not  a  spirit  but  a  lx)dv 
of  literal,  material  flesh  and  bones  which  they  saw,  Jesus 
said  to  them:  "Handle  me,  and  see;  for  a  spirit  hath  not 
flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have."  And  to  make  the 
demonstration  more  complete,  he  then  ate  "a  piece  of 
a  broiled  fish,  and  of  a  honeycomb,"  Luke  xxiv:39-42,  43. 
Then  it  is  related  (v.  51)  that  "he  was  parted  from  them 
and  carried  up  into  heaven."  If  Jesus  rose  not  bodil3% 
but  his  spirit  arose  on  the  third  day,  are  we  to  believe  his 
spirit  lay  three  days  in  the  sepulchre?  The  g-ospels  say 
unequivocally  that  Jesus  "g-ave  up  the  g-host"  while  on 
the  cross  and  that  the  body  arose  from  the  dead. 

This  is  the  old-fashioned  doctrine — the  Eg-yptian  form 
of  the  belief;  but  Paul,  with  his  Greek  modification  of 
the  resurrection  theory,  directl}^  and  unconditionally  con- 
tradicts it  in  these  words:   "Flesh  and  blood  cannot  in- 


28  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

herit  the  kingdom  of  God."    1.  Cor.  xv:50. 

§  17. — SCIENCE   DISPELS   THE   II.LUSIONS. 

That  which  distinguishes  science  from  ordinary  deduc- 
tions of  superficial  observers  and  analogists  is,  besides  its 
orderl}^  arrangements  of  facts  and  its  inductive  method, 
is  its  disillusionment — its  ability  to  distinguish  the  real 
from  the  merely  apparent.  A  familiar  illustration  of  this 
is  furnished  by  astronomy  in  demonstrating  the  immense 
distances  between  the  earth  and  the  heavenly  bodies  and 
the  almost  infinite  difference  in  these  distances  as  opposed 
to  their  apparently  short  and  equal  distance  "  above"  the 
earth  and  their  nearness  to  one  another;  another,  b}^  the 
demonstration  of  the- earth's  spherical  form  and  its  axial 
and  orbital  movement,  as  opposed  to  its  apparent  flatness 
and  fixedness;  another,  the  immense  size  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  as  opposed  to  their  apparent  diminutiveness;  and 
another,  that  the  sun,  moon  and  stars  do  not  move  from 
east  to  west  over  or  around  the  earth,  as  they  appear  to 
do,  but  that  the  moon  only,  moves  around  the  earth,  and 
that  from  west  to  east  once  in  about  twent3^-eight  days, 
instead  of  from  east  to  west  in  about  twent3^-five  hours. 

Science  dispels  quite  effectually  the  Pauline  illusion  of 
a  close  analogy  between  the  sowing  of  seed  and  the  burial 
of  the  dead,  the  germination  of  the  seed  and  the  death 
and  decay  of  the  corpse,  or  the  coming-up  of  a  new  plant 
and  the  resurrection  of  a  new  or  spiritual  body  from  the 
dead  and  decayed  "natural"  one  in  the  grave.  Science 
shows  that  the  human  body  dissolves  after  death  into  in- 
organic chemical  elements  and  non-living  compounds — 
is  wholly  destroyed  and  distributed  to  the  soil,  the  sea, 
and  the  atmosphere,  to  b3  again  assimilated  by  plants, 
and  thence  on  again  as  components  of  animal  and  other 


THE  RESURRECTION  THEORY.  29 

human  bodies,  in  a  limitless  revolution.  Science  shows 
us  that  the  seed  when  planted  does  not  "die,"  but  sets  up 
a  more  rapid  life-action — awakes  from  a  comparatively 
dormant  condition,  a  kind  of  hibernation,  just  as  the  living- 
buds  on  the  deciduous  trees  do  in  the  spring-  after  a  sea- 
son of  hibernation  through  the  winter;  the  seed  being  a 
bud  surrounded  by  a  supply  of  prepared  nutriment  suffi- 
cient to  build  up  the  new  plant  until  it  has  made  adequate 
root-connections  with  the  soil  and  leaf-connections  with 
the  air  to  enable  it  to  take  its  vsustenance  directly  from 
these  sources.  Paul  exclaims  :  "Thou  fool,  that  which 
thou  sowest  is  not  quickened,  except  it  die."  1.  Cor.  xv:36. 
But  science  convinces  us  that  if  the  seed  that  has  been 
sown  die — if  the  germ  die  and  its  accompanying-  store  of 
prepared  nutriment  rot,  the  seed  -will  not  and  can  not  be 
"quickened."  Paul  may  not  himself  have  been  a  "fool" 
in  making  this  remark,  but  he  was  more  ignorant  of  plant 
life  than  the  children  in  the  lower  g-rades  of  our  common 
schools,  and  "inspiration"  did  not  enlighten  him. 

§  18. — A  PARADOXICAL  IMMORTALITY. 

Science  is  equally  destructive  as  to  the  butterfly  illu- 
sion. There  is  no  analogy  between  the  transformation 
of  a  larva  into  the  chrysalis  state  and  the  death  of  the 
human  body.  The  larva  and  chrysalis  correspond  some- 
what to  the  pre-natal  life  of  the  human,  and  the  coming 
forth  of  the  butterfl}^  corresponds  to  the  birth  of  a  living- 
human  being,  not  to  a  resurrection  of  either  a  dead  body 
or  of  the  soul  or  spirit  from  the  dead  bod}-.  The  butter- 
fly' is  simpl}'  the  mature  insect — the  adult  stage,  in  which 
the  male  and  female  consort  and  the  eggs  are  laid  for  the 
propagation  of  the  species;  larvae  or  caterpillars  can  no 
more  reproduce  their  kind  than  can  the  human  embryo. 


30  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

If  this  Greek  supposed-analog-y  be  carried  out  log-icall_v, 
we  should  be  forced  to  assume  that  all  babies  are  born 
after  the  death  and  resurrection  of  their  parents!  And 
as  for  immortality,  this  analog-y  is  wholly  discouragfing-; 
for  the  life  of  the  butterfly  is  one  of  but  a  few  hours,  and 
then  it  dies  of  old  agfc  like  the  "  natural  body"  of  a  man. 
To  be  resurrected  to  an  immortality  analogfous  to  the  life 
of  a  butterfly,  or  that  of  next  year's  grrain-stalk,  would  be 
farcical  and  unworthy  of  the  name,  for  it  would  be  a  life 
of  mixed  pleasure  and  pain,  like  the  present,  and  g-rim 
Death  would  quickly  call  again  to  repeat  his  tragedy. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  analogy  between  an}^  and  all  of 
the  events  and  phenomena  of  human  existence  and  those 
of  wheat  or  caterpillar-butterfly  existence,  so  far  as  sci- 
ence reveals  it,  pertains  strictly  to  the  here  and  now,  the 
material  and  natural,  the  mutable  and  mortal,  and  all 
bodies  are  "natural,"  and  none  "spiritual"  but  (etymo- 
logfically)  the  atmosphere. 

§  19. — MATKRIAI.   BASIS   OF   THE   THEORY'S   ORIGIN. 

In  §  5, 1  expressed  my  opinion  that  there  ma}^  have  been 
one  or  more  prehistoric  periods  of  scientific  achievement 
nearh%  if  not  quite,  as  great  as  that  of  the  present — and 
possibly  even  greater,  in  some  respects  at  least.  There 
are  certain  philological  and  ps)xhological  fossils  that  in- 
dicate that  such  opinion  has  some  foundation;  and  one  of 
these  psychological  (or  mental)  fossils  is  the  vague  the- 
ory of  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  If  we  conceive  of 
the  race  life  as  being-  wave-like  in  its  advancement,  we 
can  see  that  humanity,  in  the  course  of  millions  of  years, 
is  carried,  under  evolutionary  laws,  not  in  a  straig-ht  line 
of  progress  onward  and  upward,  but  alternately  down 
into  the  troughs  and  up  onto  the  crests  of  the  waves  of 


THE  RESURRECTION  THEORY.  31 

progress.  To  my  mind,  evolution  pictures  the  prog"ress  of 
the  human  race  as  a  man  coming-  out  of  the  primordial 
protoplasm  in  the  ooze  at  the  bottom  of  the  ancient  ocean 
and  out  upon  the  eastern  coast  of  a  continent;  thence 
westward  taking  his  way  overland,  now  down  into  a  val- 
ley and  then  up  onto  a  hill  or  mountain,  toward  the  west- 
tern  coast;  today  he  is  crossing  a  ridge  of  the  ** Rocky 
Mountains,"  and  from  his  high  scientific  altitude  he  looks 
back  through  the  telescope  of  evolution  and  sees  (though 
he  has  forgotten  the  events)  the  ocean  he  arose  from — 
the  dark  valleys  and  bright  crests  of  the  "Blue  Ridge" 
of  the  Alleghanies  and  the  plains  and  table  lands  of  com- 
parative mediocrity.  Then  he  turns  his  scientific  vision 
through  the  telescope  of  natural  law  to  the  westward — the 
future — and  sees  rising  before  him  the  lofty  peaks  of  the 
Sierra  Nevadas,  with  glimpses  of  the  dark  valleys  inter- 
vening, and  he  hopes  that  when  he  ascends  the  highest  of 
those  lofty  peaks  of  scientific  knowledge  and  general  de- 
velopment that  he  will  be  able  to  see  still  greater  heights 
to  which  he  shall  attain;  but  alas!  as  I  stand  aside  I  see 
through  a  low  pass  lower  mountains  beyond — the  Sierra 
Madre  range,  and  beyond  that,  the  foothills — the  "Pa- 
cific Slope,"  down  which  he  will  peacefully  go  in  racial 
decline  until  he  enters  the  arid  deserts  and  fertile  fields  of 
the  Golden  State— the  "Golden  Age  "  of  the  race's  "sec- 
ond childhood  ! "  But  what  is  that  I  see  beyond  ?  O,  it  is 
another  ocean  ! — the  great  Pacific,  fit  symbol  of  an  eter- 
nal future  "  pacific"  oblivion  !  As  he  came  up  out  of  the 
stormy  Atlantic  of  the  eternal  past,  so  at  last  he  will  go 
down  into  an  ocean  of  infinite  futurit)^;  but  it  is  the  Pa- 
cific ocean — an  eternity  of  calm,  of  peace  ! 

Mistake  not  my  meaning;  this  is  given  as  a  picture  of 
the  race's  term  of  existence  as  a  part  of  the  animal  world, 


32  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

not  of  the  individual's  existence.     I  have  not  thus  pre- 
maturely arrived  at  the  end  of  my  story. 

So,  viewing:  the  probable  prog-ress  of  man  in  this  light, 
I  think  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body  may,  at 
least  in  some  deg^ree,  be  a  fossil — a  deg-eneration  of  a  pre- 
historic biolog-ical  and  chemical  science  which  had  clearl}^ 
discerned  the  phenomena  and  laws  of  the  alternate  and 
constant  chemical  and  vital  integfration  and  disintegrration 
in  which  the  material  elementary  substances  composing 
a  human  body  are  the  very  same  that  have,  in  other  com- 
binations, served  as  components  of  other  preceding  hu- 
man bodies.  The  scientific  resurrection,  the  resurrection 
of  the  atom^  pertains  to  this  life  and  this  world  only;  and 
this  brings  me  into  touch  with  the  subject  of  my  next 
chapter,  the  Re-Incarnation  Theory. 


CHAPTER  III. 

RE-IIVCARXATIOX  —  METEMPSYCHOSIS  — 
TRAiSrSMTGRATIOX   OF   SOULS. 

The  soul   that  rises  with  us,  our  life's  star, 
Hath  had  elsewhere  its  setting". —  Words-worth. 

§  20. — OBSCURK    TERMINOLOGY. 

ONE  of  the  essentials  of  science  is  definite  termin- 
olog-y.  Words  and  sentences  which  clearly  and 
definitel}'  convej'  to  the  hearer  or  reader  the  meaning-  of 
the  speaker  or  writer  are  the  ver}'  best  evidence  that  the 
person  who  thus  expressed  his  Ihoug-ht  was  a  clear  and 
orderl}^  thinker  upon  that  theme;  and  the  use  of  indefi- 
nite, obscure  or  ambiguous  terms  and  sentences  are  just 
as  sure  evidence  that  the  user  of  them  had  not  himself  a 
clear  and  well-defined  mental  view  of  his  subject-matter. 

In  many  cases  obscure  expression,  though  the  sequence 
of  misty  thought,  the  fault  is  not  that  the  thinker  him- 
self is  incapable  of  clear  thinking  upon  even  intricate  and 
comprehensive  questions,  but  is  traceable  to  incongruity 
of  the  elements  of  the  hypotheses  upon  which  the  thinker 
bases  his  ratiocination.  One  cannot  hand  to  another  a 
cup  of  clear  water  from  a  muddv  spring. 

Still  another  source  of  obscure  expression  is  the  varia- 
bleness of  the  meaning  of  words,  and  the  borrowing  of 
those  having  definite  meaning  in  one  department  of  inves- 
tigation or  thought  for  use  in  a  very  dissimilar  depart- 
ment without  carefully  indicating  what  modifications  of 
meaning  the  old  terms  are  intended  to  convey  in  their 
new  field  of  use.     And  such  use  has  a  reflex  action  that 


34  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

tends  to  not  only  obscurity  but  to  actual  vicious  chang-es 
resulting:  in  positive  error.  Take  for  instance,  the  word 
"fluid."  In  its  old  and  ordinary  use  the  word  conveys  a 
very  definite  idea  of  a  certain  state  of  matter.  But  when 
discoveries  in  mag-netism  and  electricity  were  made,  the 
students  in  the  new  branches  of  scientific  inquiry  chose 
to  borrow  rather  than  to  invent  a  convenient  term  to  ex- 
press the  idea  of  movement  along-  certain  lines  of  least 
resistance,  along-  so-called  conductors,  and  so  selected 
the  word  "fluid"  and  established  the  misleading  phrases 
"electric  fluid"  and  "magnetic  fluid,"  which  have  done 
g-reat  harm  by  conveying-  a  false  notion  of  the  nature  of 
these  "modes  of  motion" — the  notion  that  they  are  mat- 
ter in  fluid  state. 

In  the  theory  of  re-incarnation  as  variously  expounded 
under  the  names  palingrenesis  or  re-incarnation,  metem- 
psychosis, transmig-ration  of  the  sonl,  etc.,  the  mysticism 
and  vag-ueness  of  the  orig-inal  ideas  resulted  in  the  use  of 
indefinite,  undefined  terms,  which  in  turn  reacted  to  still 
more  distract  aud  obscure  and  vary  the  theory.  This  va- 
riation is  so  gfreat  that  in  one  sense  or  interpretation  of 
the  chief  terms  the  theory  is  that  of  the  crudest  barbarian 
dreamer  and  in  another  sense  or  interpretation  a  logical 
conclusion  of  modern  scientific  induction,  accepted  even 
by  such  a  positive  physicist  as  Huxley,  whom  I  will  quote 
a  little  later  in  this  chapter. 

§  21. — VAEIOUS    ASPECTS   OF   THE   THEORY. 

Perhaps  the  crudest  and  simplest  form  of  the  theory  of 
re-incarnation  is  that  in  which  the  "soul "is  conceived  of 
as  a  kind  of  being-  of  extremely  fine  or  rarified  matter 
which  inhabits  a  body  of  a  "coarser"  kind  of  matter  as 
its  "earthly  house  or  tabernacle,"  for  the  purposes  of  ob- 


RE-INCARNATION,  Etc.  35 

taining"  experience,  discipline,  education  and  develop- 
ment, so  as  to  prepare  the  soul  for  existence  in  some  sort 
of  hig-her  sphere  in  another  world;  and  that  to  grain  ade- 
quate qualifications  for  life  in  such  higher  sphere  it  is 
necessary  that  the  soul  pass  through  a  long  series  of  car- 
nations or  fleshl)^  embodiments.  To  this  end  a  soul  may 
pass  an  earthl}^  life  in  a  low  animal  or  even  plant,  be  re- 
incarnated or  '*born  again"  at  the  death  of  the  body  into 
another  body,  perhaps  animal  or  human,  and  so  repeated 
and  continued  for  thousands  of  A^ears,  until  the  soul  has 
been  thoroughl}^  disciplined  and  prepared  for  promotion 
to  a  "higher  sphere"  of  existence. 

§  22. — ORIGIN   OF   THE   DOCTRINE. 

As  to  the  origin  of  the  notion  of  transmigration  and 
re-incarnation,  we  have  nothing  of  a  historical  nature, 
and  the  ver}^  earliest  writings  and  inscriptions  of  the 
misty  past  indicate  that  a  large  proportion  of  mankind 
have  from  prehistoric  time  believed  in  some  kind  of  re- 
incarnation. Though  a  doctrine  of  Buddhism,  it  was  not 
originated  by  Buddha,  but  accepted  as  an  unquestiona- 
ble, established  part  of  human  knowledge.  And  though 
the  early  Christians  believed  in  the  doctrine,  it  is  not  set 
forth  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  new  revelation  of  either 
Jesus  or  Paul  or  any  of  the  other  apostles,  but  there  is  evi- 
dence, granting-  that  the  N.  T.  records  are  trustworthy, 
that  both  Jesus  and  Paul  accepted  the  doctrine  as  one 
that  was  so  firmly  established  that  no  one  even  thought 
of  calling  it  in  question  or  of  defending-  it.  See  Matt. 
xi:7-14  and  xvii:10-13. 

And  the  Jews  previous  to  the  Christian  era  believed  in 
re-incarnation  according  to  a  number  of  incidental  refer- 
ences to  it  in  the  Old  Testament,  thoug-h  it  must  have 


36  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

been  considered  of  little  importance.  Remnants  of  this 
Jewish  and  early  Christian  belief  come  down  to  the  pres- 
ent, the  doctrine  itself  being-  "re-incarnated"  in  the  pro- 
fessions of  Dowie,  Schlatter,  Pig-gott  and  others  claiming" 
to  be  re-incarnations  of  Elijah,  Jesus,  John  the  Baptist, 
etc.  Aside  from  Christianity,  many  modern  metaphysi- 
cians and  mystics  profess  belief  in  some  form  of  the  doc- 
trine, but  the  Theosophists  are  the  chief  propag-andists 
of  the  doctrine,  as  a  necessary  accompaniment  and  essen- 
tial condition  of  "Karma." 

§  23. — THR   THEOSOPHIC   VIRW. 

As  I  understand  the  TheOvSophical  theory  of  re-incar- 
nation the  belief  is  that  the  human  never  retrog"rades  to 
the  plane  of  the  plant  or  the  brute  in  any  of  its  incarna- 
tions, basing-  this  opinion  on  the  rather  sandy  foundation 
of  a  radical  difference  between  the  brute  and  the  man  in 
that  Manas,  the  thinker  and  immortal  person,  has  come 
upon  an  entirely  separate  and  distinct  plane  of  being — a 
difference  in  kind  rather  than  in  degree.  Hence  Theoso- 
phists are  not,  technicall}',  transmigrationists  but  strictly 
re-incarnationists,  thoug:h  in  the  Orient,  the  birhplace  of 
the  cult,  the  belief  in  brute  and  even  plant  re-embodi- 
ment of  the  human  after  death  is  and  for  ages  has  been 
quite  extensive. 

Another  feature  of  the  theory  is:  That  re-incarnation 
is  a  ladder  of  progfress  upon  which  the  entire  material  uni- 
verse is  climbing  step  by  step,  in  the  course  of  innumera- 
ble ag-es,  to  a  state  of  perfection  and  such  an  adjustment 
of  the  process  as  a  whole  as  shall  justify  every  apparent 
wrong-  as  being-  rig-ht  as  means  to  a  good  end  under  natu- 
ral law.  During-  the  interval  between  death  and  a  subse- 
quent re-incarnation  "the  higfher  triad,  Manas,  Btiddhi^ 


RE-INCARNATION,  Etc.  37 

and  Atma^  who  are  the  real  man,  go  into  another  state,'' 
says  Wm.  Q.  Judg-e,  an  authoritative  theosophical  writer, 
in  his  book  entitled  The  Ocean  of  Theosofhy^  "which  is 
called  Devachan  or  heaven,"  and  when  that  interval  '*is 
over  thej^  are  attracted  back  to  earth  for  re-incarnation." 

Considering-  the  acknowledged  fact  that  there  is  little 
(really  no)  conscious  memory  of  any  pre-existence  in  any 
of  the  incarnations  or  the  intervals  in  ** heaven;"  and  so 
practically  if  not  actuall_v  there  is  no  continuity  of  the 
personality;  and  therefore  there  is  no  self-interest  in  the 
anticipated  future  heaven  or  earth  existences,  and  the 
much-lauded  Karma  is  of  no  individual  or  personal  inter- 
est however  much  it  may  contribute  to  race  or  universal 
progress.  What  one  wishes  to  know  is  whether  he  shall 
continue,  or  awake,  after  death  the  same  person  with  re- 
membrance and  recognition  of  friends  and  relatives. 

A  "hope  of  heaven  "  which  carries  with  it  a  certaint}^ 
that  John  Smith  shall  there  have  no  remembrance  of  his 
earth  life,  of  his  dear  Mrs.  Smith  or  of  any  of  the  dear 
little  Smiths,  or  even  of  himself  as  John  Smith  of  earth- 
life — no  recognition  of  them  or  of  himself  "over  there," 
is  not  a  very  joyous  hope.  Add  to  that  the  expectation 
that  the  life  in  heaven  is  to  end,  sometime,  with  a  return 
to  earth  to  re-incarnate  and  live  as  Bill  Jones  in  this  "vale 
of  tears,"  and  the  "hope"  is  reduced  to  indifference. 

It  may  be  replied  to  this  that  sometime,  when  the  eeons 
of  ages  necessary  for  man  to  reach  perfection  have  ended, 
we  shall  "be  as  gods,"  yet  the  vast  extent  of  this  pre- 
paratory period  affords  not  cheering  hope,  but  appalling 
disma3\  But  I  am  aware  that  such  dismal  prospect  does 
not  disprove  the  theorj^  of  re-incarnation  ;  yet  it  certainl}^ 
weighs  heavib^  against  the   reasonableness  and  benefi- 


38  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

cence  of  the  scheme.  One  of  the  main  "supports"  of  the 
doctrine  being*  that  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  justify  the 
ending-  of  human  earth-life  so  much  short  of  the  realiza- 
tion of  human  aspirations  and  capabilities,  this  objection 
is  certainly  relevant  as  at  least  ag-ainst  the  pobability  of 
the  correctness  of  the  theory. 

§  24. — "supports"  of  thk  theosophic  theory. 

But  what  evidence  have  Theosophists  that  their  com- 
plex and  pretentious  scheme  of  re-incarnation  is  true  to 
nature?  It  has  no  support  as  induction  from  facts  of  ob- 
servation or  experience,  but  the  "supports"  its  believers 
rely  upon  are  defective  deductions  and  analogies.  I  will 
here  summarize  concisely  what  Mr.  Judge  sets  forth  in 
his  Ocean  of  Theosophy,  quite  fully,  as  "supporting"  the 
doctrine  of  re-incarnation  as  a  cardinal  principle  of  The- 
osophy.  The  author  devotes  a  chapter  to  the  discussion 
of  the  following  "arguments"  on  which  the  theosophic 
theory  of  re-incarnation  are  based  : 

The  nature  of  the  soul  (see  §  20,  this  chapter) ;  the  laws 
of  mind  and  soul;  differences  in  character;  necessity  for 
discipline  and  evolution;  differences  in  capacity  and  start 
in  life  at  the  cradle;  individual  identit}^  proves  it;  the 
probable  object  of  life  makes  it  necessar)^;  one  life  is  not 
enough  to  carry  out  Nature's  purposes.  (This  assuming 
to  know  what  "nature's  purposes"  are  is  like  that  of  the 
priest  who  tells  us  all  about  "God's  purposes"  !)  Mere 
death  confers  no  advance  ;  a  school  after  death  is  illog"- 
ical;  the  persistence  of  savagery  and  decay  of  nations 
gfive  support  to  it;  the  appearance  of  geniuses  is  due  to 
it  (which  is  a  plain  case  of  begging  the  question);  inhe- 
herent  ideas  common  to  man  show  it. 

There  is  no  proof  in  any  of  these  propositions;  they 


w  CKai  I  Y 


RE-INCARNATION,  Etc,  39 

simply  pertain  to  matters  which  the  hypothesis  of  re-in- 
carnation has  been  adapted  to  explain. 

§  25. — A   SELF-DEFEATING   SCHEME. 

Mr.  Judg-e  says:  *' Individuals  and  nations  in  definite 
streams  return  in  regularly  recurring-  periods  [cycles]  to 
the  earth, and  thus  bring:  back  to  the  globe  the  arts, the  civ- 
ilization, the  very  persons  who  once  were  on  it  at  work." 
If  that  is  true,  how  can  there  be  the  progress  in  the  arts, 
civilization  and  personality  which  Mr.  Judge  says  is  the 
object  of  re-incarnation?  The  old  truism,  "A  stream  can 
rise  no  higher  than  its  source,"  is  pertinent  here.  Such  a 
scheme  of  re-incarnations  would  defeat  its  own  purposes. 

§  26. — A   NON-CONSOLING   HOPE — A    FRIGID    HEAVEN. 

According  to  the  theosophic  theory  human  kinship  is 
of  the  material  bodv  only;  the  soul  is  parentless,  and  the 
body  being  mortal,  parent  and  child  "cannot  meet  and 
recognize  each  other  after  death,  as  their  souls  are  not 
so  related."  Hope  of  such  a  future  life  is  barren  of  about 
all  that  makes  "hope  of  heaven"  a  sweet  consolation. 

§  27. — BUDDHISM    AND    RE-INCARNATION. 

According  to  the  ver}^  ancient  Indian  belief  in  re-incar- 
nation the  continuity  of  life  is  not  broken  at  death,  but 
the  life  proeeds  from  death  to  re-birth  and  again  to  death 
and  re-birth  in  constant  alternation  until  the  final  disso- 
lution of  the  universe  after  a  kalpa  of  aeons  of  ages. 

Buddha  did  not  originate,  but  somewhat  modified  this 
doctrine.  The  births  of  Buddha  himself  are  usually  num- 
bered at  550,  of  which  the  later  are  called  the  great  births. 
Prof.  Waddell,  in  his  large  work,  T/ie  Buddhism  ofTibeU 
says  of  Karma  :  "It  explains  all  the  acts  and  events  of 
one's  life  as  the  results  of  deeds  done  in  previous  exist- 
ences, and  it  creates  a  system  of  rewards  and  punishments. 


40  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

sinking:  the  wicked  throug-h  the  lower  stag-es  of  human 
and  animal  existence,  and  even  to  hell,  and  lifting:  the 
gfood  to  the  level  of  migfht}^  king's,  and  even  to  the  g-ods." 

§  28. — A    REAL,  SCIENTIFIC   RE-INCARNATION. 

Notwithstanding-  that  all  of  the  theories  of  re-incar- 
nation to  which  the  term  is  usually  applied  are  esoteric 
and  metaphysical,  there  is  a  really  scientific  aspect  of  the 
subject,  dependant  upon  a  somewhat  different  use  and 
interpretation  of  terms.  And  it  is  possible,  if  not  proba- 
ble, that  the  various  mystical  and  misty  views  are  really 
dim  or  grotesque  views  (more  or  less  warped  by  sentiment 
and  obscured  by  superstition)  of  the  reality.  In  biolog"ic 
science,  the  term  heredity  is  used  and  definitely  applies 
to  all  of  re-incarnation  that  is  real  and  scientific.  The 
scientific  aspect  was  well  presented  by  Huxley  in  his  lec- 
ture on  Evohihon  and  Ethics,  from  which  I  quote. 

§  29- — HUXLEY   ON   THE    REALITY. 

"Everyda3^  experience  familiarizes  us  with  the  facts 
which  are  g-rouped  under  the  name  of  heredity.  Every- 
one of  us  bears  upon  him  obvious  marks  of  his  parentag^e, 
perhaps  of  remoter  relationships.  More  particularly  the 
sum  of  tendencies  to  act  in  a  certain  way,  which  we  call 
'character,'  is  often  to  be  traced  throug-h  a  long: series  of 
progfenitors  and  collaterals.  So  we  ma}"  justly  sa^^  that 
this  'character' — this  moral  and  intellectual  essence  of  a 
a  man  does  veritably  ^ass  over froni  one  fleshly  tabernacle  to 
another,  and  does  really  transmigrate\_ox  re-incarnate]  from 
g-eneration  to  g-eneration.  In  the  new-born  infant  the 
character  of  the  stock  lies  latent,  and  the  ego  is  little  more 
than  a  bundle  of  potentialities;  but,  very  early,  these  be- 
come actualities :  from  childhood  to  age  the}-  manifest 
themselves  in  dullness  or  brig:htness,  in  weakness  or 
streng-th,  viciousness  or  uprigfhtness:  and  with  each  fea- 


RE-INCARNATION,  Etc.  41 

ture  modified  bj-  confluence  with  another  character,  if  by 
nothing-  else,  the  character  passes  on  to  its  re-incarnation 
in  new  bodies.  The  Indian  philosophers  called  this  char- 
acter Karma.  It  is  this  Karma  which  passed  from  life 
to  life  and  linked  them  in  a  chain  of  transmigfrations; 
and  they  held  that  it  is  modified  in  each  life,  not  merely 
by  confluence  of  parentagfe,  but  b)^  its  own  acts." 

Thus  we  see  that  the  ancient  belief  in  re-incarnation 
was  based  upon  a  sort  of  primitive  hazy  fore-view  and 
conception  of  the  great  modern  scientific  theory  of  evo- 
lution, which  inductive  reasoning-  has  developed. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

SPIRITISTIC    HYPOTHESES. 

§  30. — TERMS  DEFINED. 

WHAT  do  you  understand  by  the  word  spiritistic? 
Different  persons  would  reply  with  different 
answers  to  this  question,  and  none,  perhaps,  would  be 
in  exact  accord  with  what  I  shall  herein  use  the  word  to 
mean.  In  order,  then,  that  the  ideas  which  I  intend  to 
convey  shall  be  received  in  their  integ-rity  by  every  one 
of  my  readers,  I  will  briefly  gfive  my  definition  and  ask 
them  to  accept  it  as  their  own  while  reading  this  discus- 
sion; this  may  forestall  criticism  that  is  mere  play  upon 
words,  and  also  prevent  confusion  of  ideas. 

I  herein  use  the  word  spiritistic  not  as  a  synonym  of 
spiritJialistic,  nor  as  exclusively  relating:  to  the  theories 
or  phenomena  of  modern  Spiritualism,  but  as  expressing 
a  broader,  more  comprehensive  meaning".  I  mean  by  the 
terms  Spiritistic  Hypotheses  of  a  Future  Life  all  doctrines 
of  a  continued  or  renewed  conscious  life  after  death  of 
the  body  which  are  based  upon  the  general  hypothesis 
that  the  material  body  actually  dies  and  disintegrates 
and  is  never  resurrected,  but  that  an  immaterial  being  or 
organism  closely  corresponding  in  parts  and  in  whole  to 
the  material  body  it  is  supposed  to  have  "inhabited,*'  es- 
capes and  lives  forever  in  a  new  state  of  existence.  This 
embraces  not  only  the  beliefs  of  the  Spiritualists,  but  a 
largfe  and  increasing  number  of  the  more  intelligfent  and 
educated  Christians  and  Deists. 

The  major  premise  of  this  doctrine  is  that  man  in  this 


SPIRITISTIC  HYPOTHESES.  43 

life  is  a  dual  (some  say  a  triune)  being-,  body  and  spirit, 
or  soul;  the  minor  premise  is  that,  though  the  body  dies, 
the  spirit  is  essentially  immortal,  and  thoug^h  the  body 
is  useful  to  it  for  awhile,  it  can  and  does  ultimately  live 
independently  of  any  material  counterpart  or  body.  Ad- 
mit the  truth  of  these  premises  and  the  conclusion  is  log"- 
ical  that  there  is  a  future  life  for  at  least  one  component 
of  the  human  duad  or  triad.  But,  are  the3%  or  either  of 
them,  true?  Are  they  self-evident  facts  or  inductively 
ascertained  principles?  As  to  the  first  half  of  the  latter 
question,  I  will  say  that  to  a  critical  and  scientific  mind 
*' self-evident"  truths  are  exceedingh'  rare;  in  fact,  to  me 
there  appears  to  be  but  two  self-evident  truths.  One  is, 
I am^  the  other  is,  //  is  :  the  /and  the  not  I^me  and  my 
environment  exist.  All  other  truths  must  rest  primarily 
upon  these  two,  and  secondarily  upon  other  and  collateral 
facts,  as  the  keystone  of  an  arch  is  supported  by  the  other 
stones  of  the  arch  and  all  by  the  two  bottom  stones,  one 
at  the  base  of  each  half  of  the  arch.  I  will,  then,  pass 
as  irrelevant  the  "self-evident''  argument  and  proceed  to 
discuss  the  alleg-ed  scientific  proofs  of  the  dual  nature  of 
man  and  the  indestructibility  of  the  spirit  element. 

§  31. — IS    MAN    A   DUAD? 

Though  man}^  spiritists  assert  that  man  is  a  triad,  con- 
sisting of  body,  soul  and  spirit,  I  shall  not  here  discuss 
the  question  of  a  difference  between  soul  and  spirit,  or 
between  the  spirit  and  the  *' spiritual  body,"  as  spiritists 
believe  both  survive  the  death  of  the  body.  I  will  con- 
sider them  together  as  one,  for  the  arguments  for  the  ex- 
istence of  both  are  the  same.  That  there  is  a  material 
human  body,  all  admit — even  the  Christian  Scientist  ad- 
mits it  in  practice^  though  he  denies  it  in  theory.     The 


44  A  FUTURE   LIFE? 

question,  then,  is  narrowed  down  to  this:  Is  there  a  spirit 
in  the  living-  bod}'?  Spiritists  declare  there  is.  Let  us 
examine  the  g-rounds  of  their  belief. 

There  are  three  distinct  reasons  g-iven  for  believing-  in 
the  existence  of  a  spirit  entity  in  the  living-  body.  1.  It 
is  revealed  in  the  Bible;  2.  The  belief  is  universal;  3.  It 
is  necessary  to  account  for  freedom  of  volition  and  the 
power  of  initiating-  motion,  thoug-ht  etc. 

§  32. — RRVEI.ATION   AS   EVIDKNCK. 

To  many  people  the  testimony  of  the  biblical  writers 
is  acceptible  as  conclusive  proof;  to  some  it  is  of  little 
or  no  use  as  evidence.  But  whether  the  Bible  is  a  mes- 
sag-e  from  Omniscience  or  is  the  work  of  finite,  ignorant, 
semi-barbaric  men,  its  testimony  is  worthless  if  it  is  in- 
consistent or  self-contradictory.  A  few  quotations  will  be 
enough  to  satisfy  any  rational  person  that  the  testimony 
of  the  Bible  is  ambigfuous,  inconsistent  and  self-contra- 
dictory. In  fact  it  is  impossible  to  quote  much  from  the 
Bible  on  this  subject  for  it  does  not  contain  much,  and 
that  little  i^,  for  the  most  part,  merely  incidental  remark. 
The  first  mention  of  spirit  is  in  Gen.  i:2.:  "And  darkness 
was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep.  And  the  Spirit  of  Elohim 
(God)  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters."  But  strictly 
speaking-,  this  does  not  refer  to  a  spirit  being-,  I  think, 
but  to  winds  considered  as  the  breath  oj  the  gods.  In  the 
Jehovistic  cosmogfony  it  is  said  (Gen.  ii:7),  ''the  Lord 
God  ....  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  and 
man  became  a  living:  soul."  Here  again  the  spirit  of  the 
Lord  of  the  gfods,  or  of  "the  god  Jahveh,"  is  represented 
not  as  a  personality,  but  as  his  breathy  and  that  breath 
naturally  entered  into  Adam  by  way  of  his  nostrils  and 
caused  him  to  become  "a  living  soul."  If  a  spirit  medium 


SPIRITISTIC  HYPOTHESES.  45 

were  to  announce  that  a  spirit  had  entered  into  her  body 
throug-h  her  nose  the  Christian  scoffer  would  consider  it 
to  be  an  exceedingly  ludicrous  explanation,  but  he  will 
read  this  story  of  the  spirit  of  a  jjfod  entering"  Adam's  body 
throug-h  his  nose  as  a  dignified  recital  of  "solemn  truth  !  " 
'Twould  be  blasphemy  to  laugh  at  that ! 

Eliphaz  speaks  of  seeing  a  spirit  (Job  iv:l5)  but  doesn't 
say  that  it  was  that  of  a  man.  It  must  have  been  a  con- 
ventional '*ghost,"  for  it  appeared  to  him  "in  the  night, 
when  deep  sleep  falleth  on  men,"  and  he  was  so  fright- 
ened that,  he  says,  it  made  him  tremble  and  his  bones  to 
shake  and  the  hair  of  his  flesh  stand  up — just  as  it  does 
with  everj^one  (they  say)  who  sees  a  ghost!  But  ghost 
stories  are  at  a  discount  in  these  days  of  iconoclastic  sci- 
ence, and  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  poor  Job's  friend 
Eliphaz  was  a  little  over-zealous  and  so  resorted  to  some 
highly  poetical  embellishment  of  his  addresses  as  coun- 
sellor and  advocate  of  Jahveh.  But  Job  himself  seems  to 
have  believed  that  man  "has  a  spirit  or  soul,*'  for  he  com- 
plains, he  says,  (ch.  vii:ll),"in  the  bitterness  of  my  soul" 
and  "I  will  speak  in  the  anguish  of  my  spirit."  But  this 
is  far  from  a  positive  declaration  that  his  spirit  and  his 
soul  were  personal  beings  and  not  merely  the  emotional 
elements  of  his  mind.  In  other  places  Job  speaks  of  his 
soul,  but  always  as  one  speaking  of  the  emotional  ele- 
ment of  his  mind. 

I  think  it  is  quite  evident  from  expressions  of  Job  that 
he  did  not  believe  in  any  survival  of  the  spirit  after  death. 
In  fact  he  speaks  as  though  it  was  "self-evident"  that 
"as  the  cloud  is  consumed  and  vanisheth  away,  so  he  that 
goeth  down  to  the  grave  shall  come  up  no  more"  (vii:9), 
either  in  body  or  spirit,  for  he  sa^^s  "man  dieth  and  wast- 
eth  away  :  3^ea,  man  giveth  up  the  ghost  [breath],  and 


46  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

where  is  he?"  And  that  famous  question,  almost  univer- 
sally misapprehended,  *'If  a  man  die,  shall  he  live  agfain?" 
is  asked,  not  as  seeking-  information,  but  as  a  question  so 
palpabl)^  absurd  as  to  afford  its  own  answer — as  much  as 
to  say  that  if  he  could  die  he  should  be  forever  free  from 
his  *'an£:uish  of  spirit"  and  "bitterness  of  soul."  (See 
ch.  xiv.  V.  14,  and  contexts;  also,  x:20-21  and  xiv:12.) 

But  other  "inspired  writers"  seem  to  contradict  Job 
and  affirm,  thoug-h  indirectly,  that  there  is  a  spirit  being- 
in  the  human  body  that  does  not  die  with  the  body  but 
passes  out  of  it  and  continues  to  live  independently.  For 
instance,  read  iKings  xvii:l7-23,  where  Elijah  persuaded 
Jahveh,  in  the  case  of  a  dead  child,  to  "let  this  child's 
soul  come  into  him  again,"  "  and  the  soul  of  the  child 
came  into  him  again,  and  he  revived."  See  the  story  of 
the  witch  of  En-dor  (1  Sam.  xxviiir7-15),  wherein  it  is  told 
that  the  spirit  of  Samuel,  who  was  dead,  communicated, 
exactly  in  the  manner  of  modern  Spiritualism  through  the 
woman  as  a  medium,  with  Saul.  In  tllis  case,  however, 
we  may  infer  that  the  spirit  habitually  rested  quieth^  in 
the  grave  with  the  dead  body,  as  it  is  told  that  Saul  said 
to  the  woman,  "bring  me  up  Samuel,"  and  the  woman 
having  done  so,  said  she  saw  "gods  [daemons  or  spirits] 
ascending  out  of  the  earth;"  and  Samuel  reproached  Saul, 
saying:  "Why  hast  thou  disquieted  me  to  bring  me  up?" 
In  a  number  of  places  in  both  the  Old  and  the  New  Tes- 
taments the  word  angel,  and  even  Lord,  is  evidentl}^  used 
to  mean  a  daemon  or  disembodied  spirit. 

Taking  the  Hebrew  writings  of  the  Bible  in  general  we 
find  that  there  is  little  in  them  that  declares  or  indicates 
any  well-defined  doctrine  of  a  future  life  of  any  kind,  but 
there  are  some  very  positive  statements  that  "death  ends 


SPIRITISTIC  HYPOTHESES.  47 

all."  In  addition  to  the  above  quotations  from  Job  I  will 
make  a  few  from  Solomon,  who  being-  reputed  the  wisest 
man  that  ever  lived,  should  be  the  best  of  authority. 

After  saying^  of  the  sons  of  men  that  "thej^  themselves 
are  beasts,"  Solomon  continues  (Ercl.  iii:19):  "For  that 
which  befalleth  the  sons  of  men  befalleth  beasts;  even 
one  thing"  befalleth  them:  as  the  one  dieth,  so  dieth  the 
other;  3'ea,  they  have  all  one  breath  [or  spirit];  so  that 
a  man  hath  no  pre-eminence  above  a  beast.  . .  All  go  unto 
one  place;  all  are  of  the  dust,  and  all  return  to  dust  again. 
Who  knoweth  tlie  spirit  of  man  that  goeth  upward,  and 
the  spirit  of  the  beast  that  goeth  downward  to  the  earth?  " 
This  reference  to  the  going  up  or  down  of  the  "spirit"  of 
man  and  beast  plainly  shows  that  this  spirit  was  literally 
their  breath.  If  not,  then  Solomon  believed  that  beasts 
as  well  as  men  have  spirits ! 

"It  is  better  to  go  to  the  house  of  mourning  than  to  g"0 
to  the  house  of  feasting;  for  that  is  the  end  of  all  men," 
Kcch  vii:2.  "There  is  no  man  that  hath  power  over  the 
spirit  to  retain  the  spirit;  neither  hath  he  power  [to  do  so] 
in  the  day  of  death."  Ch.  viii:8.  Here  again  by  spirit  is 
meant  the  breath.  "For  a  living  dog  is  better  than  a 
dead  lion.  For  the  living  know  that  they  shall  die;  but 
the  dead  know  not  anything,  neither  have  they  any  more 
a  reward."  ix:4-5.  Solomon  uses  the  word  spirit  in  its 
sense  of  disposition  or  temper  as  well  as  for  breath,  as  in 
Prov.  xvi:18-19,  which  says:  "Pride  goeth  before 'destruc- 
tion and  a  haughty  spirit  before  a  fall.  Better  it  is  to  be 
of  an  humble  spirit,"  etc.,  but  nowhere  does  he  positive- 
ly use  it  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  by  spiritists. 

David  seems  to  have  believed  that  the  "soul"  died  with 
the  body,  or,  at  least,  went  into  the  grave  with  it.  He 
exclaims:   "What  man  is  he  that  liveth  and  shall  not  see 


48  A  FUTURE   LIFE? 

death?    Shall  he  deliver  his  soul  from  the'hand  of  the 
grave?"  Psalm  lxxxix:48. 

But  the  Old  Testament  is  of  and  for  this  world  only, 
and  to  you  who  disag-rees  with  me  here  I  say,  read  it  all 
carefully  through  with  the  object  of  confirming  your  be- 
lief in  the  existence  of  a  spirit  or  soul  in  man  that  is  des- 
tined to  live  as  a  person  after  the  death  of  the  bod)%  and 
then  tell  me  if  you  have  not  been  disappointed  and  as- 
tonished to  find  so  little  grain  in  so  large  a  field  ! 

§   33. — SPIRITISM    OF   THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

Many  spiritists  who  are  Christians  admit  that  the  He- 
brew Bible  reveals  little  if  anything  respecting  the  ques- 
tions of  the  existence  of  a  human  soul  or  spirit  having 
ability  to  live  independent^^  of  a  material  body  after  the 
death  of  the  body,  but  say  that  Christ  "brought  life  and 
immortality  to  light,"  and  that  the  New  Testament  wri- 
ters, under  inspiration,  recorded  and  amplified  his  revela- 
tion. And  it  is  true  that  the  Christian's  belief  in  spirit 
or  soul  and  a  future  life  is  derived  chiefly  from  that  por- 
tion of  the  Bible;  but  I  do  not  think  the  New  Testament 
teaches  what  I  have  defined  spiritism  to  be,  b}-  direct  as- 
sertion. It  teaches  not  the  doctrine  that  human  souls  or 
spirits  are  to  live  eternally  in  either  heaven  or  hell  with- 
out a  "body"  of  some  kind,  but  all  of  its  writers,  except 
Paul,  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  old  body 
in  which  the  spirit  shall  again  actively  live.  Paul,  be- 
ing a  man  too  well  educated  to  accept  the  crude  theor}^ 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  same  body  identically  that  was 
laid  in  the  grave,  presented  a  modification  of  the  doctrine 
as  set  forth  in  his  theory  of  a  "spiritual  body  "  raised 
from  the  dead  "natural  body"  as  a  wheat  stalk  comes  up 
from  a  grain  that  has  been  buried  in  the  ground.   (1  Cor. 


SPIRITISTIC  HYPOTHESES.  49 

xv:44).     See  the  absurdity  of  ^his  theory  exposed  in  §  14, 
to  §  18,  inclusive,  of  this  discussion. 

In  1  John  iv:l-3  spirits  are  spoken  of  in  a  manner  that 
leads  some  spiritists,  especially  the  Spiritualists,  to  think 
the  writer  refers  to  spirit  beingfs,  whereas  he  speaks  of 
the  spirit — the  disposition,  the  temper,  the  motive,  man- 
ner— of  certain  persons  who  were  teaching*  religious  doc- 
trines at  that  time,  some  of  whom  were  suspicioned  of 
being"  unorthodox  or  heretical.  *' Beloved,  believe  not  ev- 
ery spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God ;  be- 
cause many  false  prophets  have  gone  out  into  the  world." 
The  writer  here  evidently  refers  to  that  vague  thing  that 
has  been  called  "the  spirit  of  prophecy."  This  is  shown 
by  expressions  in  the  secopd  and  third  verses,  and  by  the 
general  tenor  of  the  chapter. 

This  use  of  the  word  spirit  is  found  also  in  1  Tim.  iv:l. 
Here  it  is  said  that  "the  Spirit"  (whatever  that  may  be) 
"speaketh  expressly,  that  in  the  latter  times  some  shall 
depart  from  the  faith,  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits  and 
doctrines  of  devils."  Whether  "the  Spirit"  here  means  the 
Holy  Ghost,  or  that  spirit  of  prophecy  manifested  in  the 
frenzy  and  delirium  of  religious  excitement,  or  something 
else,  it  certainly  does  not  mean  a  human  personality ;  nei- 
ther does  the  "seducing  spirits"  spoken  of  mean  spirits 
of  the  dead,  nor  the  personality  of  the  living",  but  living 
people  of  a  certain  disposition  or  spirit ;  and  even  if  the 
seducing  spirits  and  devils  were  understood  to  be  imma- 
terial beings  or  personalities,  we  have  no  assurance  that 
they  were  supposed  to  be  survivals  from  dead  human  bod- 
ies. The  succeeding  remarks,  in  verses  2  and  3,  plainly 
show  that  heretical  people  in  this  life  were  meant. 

And  yet,  the  New  Testament  writers  do  reflect  here 


50  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

and  there  the  pag-an  belief  of  the  Egfyptians  and  Romans 
in  daemons;  that  is,  disembodied  spirits.  But  that  belief 
carried  with  it  the  belief  that  such  spirits  or  daemons 
were  in  a  place  of  waiting- — a  sort  of  dormant  or  semi- 
sleeping"  state — awaiting-  the  appointed  time  when  they 
should  re-enter  their  resurrected  bodies,  and  that  belief 
is  not  what  I  defined  the  word  spiritism  to  mean.  This 
is  really  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection,  which  I  treated 
of  in  the  second  paper  of  this  series.  I  find  no  positive  as- 
sertion by  any  New  Testament  writer  that  man  **has"  or 
is  a  spirit  or  soul  destined  to  live  forever  independently 
of  the  body,  as  believed  by  Spiritualists,  Unitarians,  Lib- 
eral Christians,  deists,  and  even  some  atheists. 

§  34. — WOKTHLKSS   AS   KVIDKNCE. 

These  references  to  and  quotations  of  the  biblical  wri- 
ting's. Old  and  New,  are  not  made  because  I  think  they 
are  authoritative,  inspired  or  reliable  as  evidence  as  to 
the  question  of  embodied  or  disembodied  spirit  here  or 
in  the  hereafter,  but  because  others  do  think  so  and  rest 
their  belief,  in  the  existence  of  an  immortal  personality 
in  the  living"  bod)^  that  continues  conscious  existence  af- 
ter bodily  death,  upon  the  Bible.  To  me  they  are,  as  evi- 
dence either  for  or  ag-ainst,  as  the  air-castles  of  oriental 
dreamers,  far-fetched  analogies  of  crude  metaphysicians, 
the  imag-ery  of  poetry — the  "baseless  fabric  of  a  dream." 
The  only  evidence  of  this  being-  true  of  these  biblical  ref- 
erences to  this  question  that  I  deem  necessar}^  to  mention 
here  is  the  hazy,  contradictory,  ambiguous  and  allegori- 
cal character  of  the  writings  themselves. 

§  35.  — UNIVERSALITY   OF   THE   BELIEF. 

Many  people  are  g"reatly  influenced  in  forming-  their 
opinions  and  adopting-  their  creeds  by  "they  say."    And 


SPIRITISTIC  HYPOTHESES.  51 

of  all  the  foundations  upon  which  to  build  a  consistent, 
rational  and  truthful  belief  '*they  sa}^"  is  the  most  unsub- 
stantial and  untrustworthy.  No  matter  how  vast  a  num- 
ber of  people  are  represented  by  *'they,"  their  testimony 
is  unreliable  if  not  consistent  with  truth  obtained  by  sci- 
entific observation,  experimentation  and  induction.  No, 
it  may  be  laid  down  as  an  axiomatic  truth  that,  as  a  g"en- 
eral  rule,  the  greater  the  number  of  people  who  hold  to 
a  belief  the  less  trustworthy  is  their  testimony-,  especially 
if  that  belief  is  of  ancient  origfin.  This  is  because  a  larg"e 
majority  of  mankind  always  have  been  and  are  yet  really 
uncritical  observers,  illogical  reasoners,  lovers  of  m)'s- 
tery,of  excessive  credulit}'  and  sugfgestibilit}';  and  also  be- 
cause larg-el)Mmitative  and  exceeding-ly  desirous  of  secur- 
\ng  the  approbation  of  larg^e  numbers  of  their  fellow-men. 
Rather  than  suffer  popular  disapproval  they  will  close 
their  eyes  to  facts  they  fear  migfht  prove  the  erroneous- 
ness  of  the  beliefs  they  know  to  be  popular. 

All  the  inhabitants  of  earth  once  believed  it  to  be  flat 
and  stationary,  and  that  the  heavens  daih'  passed  over  it 
from  east  to  west;  and  today  a  large  proportion  of  the  hu- 
man race  think  they  are  sure  of  it.  For  ages  all  men  be- 
lieved the  sky  to  be  a  solid,  arched  roof  of  the  world  and 
almost  within  their  reach.  Millions  have  believed  some 
people  could  change  themselves  into  wolves  or  other  ani- 
mals. Millions  have  believed  that  Mohammed  was  Ike 
prophet  of  God  and  millions  still  believe  it;  and  their  be- 
lief in  silly  stories  atx>ut  him  is  implicit  and  as  unreason- 
able as  the  belief  of  millions  of  Christians  in  the  impos- 
sible miracles  of  the  Bible  record.  The  logical  inference 
to  be  drawn  from  this  is  that  the  belief  of  large  numbers 
in  anything  is  no  evidence  whatever  that  it  represents 
truth,  but  rather  the  contrary. 


52  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

I  readily  admit  that  a  very  great  number  of  the  race, 
in  the  past  up  to  the  present,  have  believed  in  spirits  in 
and  out  of  material  bodies,  and  even  that  disembodied 
spirits  will  live  forever  without  re-embodiment.  But 
I  cannot  admit  that  such  belief  is  or  ever  has  been  "uni- 
versal," or  even  nearly  so. 

My  contention  (supported  by  facts,  I  think,)  is  that 
the  belief  of  larg-e  numbers,  or  even  all  men,  is  no  evi- 
dence either  for  or  against  the  spiritistic  hypotheses. 


CHAPTER    V. 

SPIRITISM  AS  A  ^\^ORKING  HYPOTHESIS. 

§36.  —  IS   THE   SPIRITISTIC   HYHOTHESIS   NECESSARY? 

IT  IS  tlioug-ht  b)^  some  people,  even  some  who  are  of 
a  scientific  bent  of  mind  and  education,  that  certain 
psycholog-ical  phenomena  are  inexplainable  except  upon 
the  h3^pothesis  that  there  is  in  man  a  "  spirit,"  a  deus  ex 
7nachina — a  of  kind  uncaused  cause  which  can  initiate  ac- 
tion ;  that  is,  like  Elohim  of  old,  it  can  create  something- 
out  of  nothing". 

The  g-reatest  of  these  phenomena  that  are  supposed  to 
reflexivelj^  prove  that  in  man  there  is  a  spirit  entity  that 
is  a  vsort  of  finite  microcosmic  ** first  cause,"  analag-ous  to 
and  '*  made  in  the  imag-e  of  "  that  assumed  infinite  macro- 
cosmic  ''Great  First  Cause,"  is  that  of  freedom  of  the 
will.  Some,  to  maintain  the  proper  dig-nit)^  of  man  and 
keep  him  in  his  place  at  the  head  of  the  procession  of  all 
living-  thingfs,  assume  that  brutes — "the  lower  animals" 
have  no  spirits,  all  their  activities  being-  effected  by  the 
"vital  forces"  under  natural  law.  But  man,  the  pet  and 
"spoiled  child  "  of  the  Creator,  is  an  exception — enjoys 
more  or  less  exemption  from  control  by  natural  law.  He 
can  do  thing-s  without  natural  cause — just  because  he 
wants  to — and  can  even  do  things  he  don't  want  to  do^ 
to  demonstrate  the  independence  and  freedom  of  his  will  !• 
Like  the  boy  who  when  asked  wh)^  he  did  thus  and  so, 
"short-circuits  "  his  answer  by  replying-,  "Jist  'cause  uh 
wanted  tuh."    But  others,  especially  of  late,  assume  that 

C53) 


54  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

animals  as  well  as  men  have  souls,  and  enjoy  to  some  ex- 
tent freedom  of  will. 

This  argfument  that  the  existence  of  a  human  spirit  is 
proved  because  it  is  necessary  to  account  for  freedom  of 
will  appears  to  me  much  like  saying  that  there  must  be 
a  ladder  reaching  from  the  earth  to  the  moon,  for  in  no 
other  way  can  we  account  for  "the  man  in  the  moon  ! " 
That  is  to  say,  it  is  not  necessary  to  adopt  a  hypothesis 
to  account  for  that  which  does  not  exist.  Before  we  try 
to  account  for  freedom  of  the  will,  we  should  know  that 
freedom  of  will  is  a  fact.  Whatever  other  evidence  there 
may  be  of  the  existence  of  a  human  spirit,  this  appeal  to 
the  common  illusion  of  free  will  is  fruitless. 


§  37.- 


-DRTRRMINISM. 


The  subjective  feeling  of  man  that  he  is  not  wholly 
subject  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  nature — the  invariable  re- 
lationship of  cause  to  effect — is  extremely  persistent,  and 
the  feeling  of  self-importance  is  so  intense  that  we  rebel 
instantly  against  the  accusation  that  we  are  not  absolute- 
ly free  and  independent  egos.  But  a  close,  critical  and 
strictly  objective  view  will  convince  those  capable  of  in- 
ductive reasoning  that  man's  will  is  determined  b}^  nat- 
ural causes,  hereditary  and  environmental. 

To  illustrate  what  I  mean,  I  will  liken  the  life  of  man 
to  a  river.  We  all  recognize  the  similarity,  but  generally 
without  making  any  close  and  critical  comparison  ;  we 
personify  the  rivulet  or  the  river  as  a  living  thing  "wend- 
ing its  devious  way"  from  its  birth  at  the  mountain  spring 
to  its  extinction  in  the  ocean's  surf  and  diffusion  in  the 
great  emblem  of  eternity,  the  ocean ;  we  speak  of  our  own 
life  as  a  stream,  and  the  expression,  "river  of  life,"  has 
come  down  to  us  with  the  history  of  the  race  from  the 


SPIRITISTIC  HYPOTHESES.  55 

"ancient  of  da3'S.''   Thougrh  these  are  poetic  similes,  they 
are  at  bottom  scientific  analog-ies. 

Yet,  in  spite  of  our  recognition  of  this  analogfy,  we  do 
not  ascribe  freedom  of  will  to  the  river,  but  we  realize 
that  just  three  things  detennine  its  every  movement  and 
its  course  from  the  spring  to  the  sea.  These  three  things 
are:  1.  Temperature,  causing  fluidity  of  the  water;  2. 
Gravit3%  causing  the  water  to  move  "down  hill;"  3.  The 
River-bed,  bottom  and  shores,  causing  the  water  to  con- 
tinue near,  without  dispersing  over,  the  earth's  surface, 
and  restricting  the  velocity  and  course  of  the  water. 

In  a  human  life  we  find  just  three  fundamental  factors 
that  deter^nine  man's  every  act  and  his  course  from  birth 
to  death:  1.  The  physio-chemical  so-called  "forces," 
causing  integration  and  disintegration — growth  and  de- 
cay of  tissues;  2.  Heredity,  causing  the  tendency  of  the 
progeuA^  to  exactly  repeat  the  life  of  the  progenitor;  3. 
Varying  Environment— concurrent  circumstances  of  life- 
modifying  the  effects  of  heredit}^  and  forming  new  fac- 
tors of  the  inheritance  of  the  progeny,  thus  almost  infi- 
nitely multiplying  concurring  and  conflicting  elements 
of  heredit)^  as  the  life  of  the  race  extends.  Every  move- 
ment, every  pain  and  every  pleasure,  every  thought,  every 
emotion,  every  sentiment,  every  choice,  every  virtue  and 
every  vice,  everj^  good  deed  and  every  crime — absolutely 
alloi  life — all  of  the  phenomena  of  human  life  are  amply 
provided  for  without  the  slightest  intervention  of  a  "free 
will,"  and  they  are  scientifically  accounted  for  as  effects 
of  those  three  fundamental  causes  without  recourse  to 
the  spiritistic  hypothesis.  The  true  scientist  never  re- 
sorts to  hypotheses  to  explain  phenomena  which  are 
accounted  for  by  ascertained  facts  and  well-stablished 


56  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

principles.  The  objector  may  say,  '*I  can,  by  the  act  of 
my  free  will,  choose  to  reject  bread  and  eat  arsenic,  or  I 
can  deliberately  place  my  hand  in  a  fire;  thoug-h  my  ap- 
petite demand  food,  I  can  refrain  from  eating-,  etc."! 

I  reply:  You  can  do  these  things,  certainly,  but  only 
as  compelled  by  your  environfnent  to  do  so.  If  you  per- 
form these  apparently  irregular  acts  merely  to  convince 
me  that  you  can  choose  to  do  so,  remember  that  the  cir- 
cumstances of  our  difference  of  opinion  and  your  desire 
to  convince  me  that  I  am  wrong  and  you  are  right  con- 
stitute the  over-balancing  elements  of  your  environment 
which  determines  your  will— compels  you  to  thus  act  op- 
positely to  what  you  would  otherwise  have  done.  As  the 
banks  of  the  river  determine  the  direction  of  its  flow,  so 
the  environment  of  the  man  determ-nes  the  direction  of 
his  actions— his  will. 

Two  bright  boys,  John  and  James,  schoolmates  and 
devoted  chums,  decide  to  join  a  polar  expedition.  They 
agree  to  stand  by  each  other  in  all  their  dangers  and  de- 
privations; would  be  really  and  truly  brothers.  They  go, 
and  at  length  they  find  themselves  prisoners  in  the  ice 
and  starving  to  death.  James  dies;  John  has  had  nothing 
to  eat  for  many  days.  His  desire  for  food  is  overwhelm- 
ing; sentiment  is  dead — he  eats  the  flesh  of  his  once  dear 
friend.  Was  his  will  free?  The  new  environment  deter- 
mined his  will  to  do  what  in  his  former  environment  he 
would  not  have  believed  he  could  by  any  power  be  com- 
pelled to  do;  but  environment  is  the  lord  of  the  trinity  of 
the  "Almighty" — Physio-chemical  Action,  Heredity  and 
Environment. 

It  has  been  objected  to  determinism  that,  if  true,  efforts 
to  reform  the  criminal  by  either  education  or  penalty  are 


SPIRITISM  AS  A  WORKING  HYPOTHESIS.     57 

useless,  as  the  **  fate  "  of  everyone  is  beyond  volitional 
control  ;  but  the  exact  opposite  is  true.  By  changing" 
the  environment  of  the  criminal  his  will  may  be  deter- 
mined against  criminal  action  and  for  right  action.  The 
*' reformer's"  will  to  provide  this  new  environment  is  not 
spontaneous  or  "free,"  but  is  itself  determined  by  ///s  or- 
ganization, heredit)^  and  environment,  so  that  the  crimi- 
nal and  the  reformer  alike  fulfill  the  great  law  of  nature: 
Every  cause  is  itself  an  effect,  and  ever)"  efiFect  a  cause. 

One  curious  phase  of  the  belief  in  freedom  of  the  will 
is  that  while  we  are  deluded  into  a  belief  in  it,  in  practice 
we  to  a  great  extent  ignore  it.  Every  time  one  asks  an- 
other, "  Why  did  you  do  so?  "  he  reall)^  asks,  "What  was 
the  circumstance — the  thing  in  your  environment — that 
determined  your  will  to  do  so?"  That  is,  he  recognizes 
the  fact  that  the  will  to  do  was  not  spontaneous  but  caused 
by  something  in  the  circumstances  of  the  one  who  willed 
to  do.  Everv  detective  and  every  criminal  court  recog- 
nizes the  fact  that  there  is  a  motive  for  every  crime,  and 
when  a  motive  is  found  it  weighs  heavily  as  evidence  in 
the  case.  We  are  forced  in  spite  of  our  creed  to  acknowl- 
edge in  practical  affairs  that  the  will  is  determined  by 
natural  causes;  that  it  is  an  effect  of  cause  and  not  an  un- 
caused cause,  and  no  spirit  entit)"  is  needed  to  "create" 
decisions  of  the  will. 

I  will  here  quote  what  has  been  said  on  this  question 
b}^  one  of  the  world's  deservedly  best-known  biologists, 
Professor  Ernst  Haeckel,  of  the  University  of  Jena  (Ger- 
many). In  the  18th  Thesis  of  his  address  on  the  Organiz- 
ation of  Monism*  (page  8),  he  says  : 


*  A  Universal  Monistic  Alliance,  By  Ernst  Haeckel. 
The  famous  "Thirty  Theses,"  published  by  The  Review 
office,  852  E.  Lee  st.,  Los  Angeles,  Cal.    Price  6  cents. 


58  A  FUTURE   LIFE? 

In  the  same  manner  as  all  other  functions  of  the  brain 
— sensation,  imagination,  reasoning- — the  will  of  man  is 
a  physiological  function  of  the  nervous  central  organ  and 
determined  by  the  anatomical  structure  of  the  same.  The 
special  personal  qualities  of  the  brain,  which  are  partly 
given  through  heredity  from  ancestors  and  partly  ac- 
quired through  accommodation  [to  environment]  in  indi- 
vidual life,  with  necessity  determine  the  will.  The  old 
dogma  of  a  free  will,  indeterminism,  therefore  appears  to 
be  absurd  and  must  be  replaced  by  determinism. 

Let  me   give  a  note  of  caution:  By  heredity  I  do  not 

mean  the  transmission  of  traits  merely  from  the  parents, 

but  from  all  oi  one's  progenitors  back  to  the  first  living 

cell — the  earlier  influence  constantly  being  modified  by 

that  of  later  environment  and  the  duality  of  parentage. 


§38. 


-IS    SPIRIT   NECESSAKY   TO    INITIATE    MOTION  .'' 


Another  well-nigh  universal  illusion  is  that  of  the  be- 
ginning and  ending  of  motion — that  a  living  being  can 
initiate  motion — create  motion  out  of  inertia,  as  matter  is 
b}'^  some  believed  to  have  been  created  out  of  nothing  b}^ 
living  gods — Elohim  of  the  Hebrews.  Even  some  who 
are  reputed  scientists  today  seem  to  ascribe  this  miracu- 
lous performance  to  ^'spirit,"  or  to  "  force,"  which  is 
but  a  substitute  for  spirit  and  just  as  illusor}^  and  unreal. 
But  it  is  a  superficial  view  of  nature  that  leads  one  to  be- 
lieve that  motion  is  ever  created  or  ever  annihilated. 

Up  to  comparatively  recent  years  men  believed  that 
matter  could  be  and  had  been  created,  and  that  it  could 
be  and  was  daily  being  annihilated.  The  old  notion  of 
the  prophesied  destruction  of  the  world  by  fire  at  ''the 
last  day"  was,  that  in  being  entirely  "burned  up "  it 
would  be  completely  blotted  out  of  existence — reduced  to 
nothingness.  But  when  alchemy  gave  place  to  chemistry 
the  great  truth,  like  a  blazing  sun  just  rising,  burst  upon 


SPIRITISM  AS  A  WORKING  HYPOTHESIS.     59 

the  vision  of  the  pioneers  of  modern  science,  and  one  of  the 
most  alert  of  them,  Lavoisier,  saw  it  first  and  announced 
the  g"reat  natural  law  and  fundamental  principle  of  sci- 
ence, the  Constancy  of  Matter — its  uncreatability  and  its 
indestructibility.  Then  came  another  student  of  nature, 
Robert  Ma^^er,  and  announced  the  great  law  of  the  Con- 
stancv  or  Conservation  of  Energ")^ — its  uncreatabilit}^  and 
indestructibility.  Then  came  Haeckel  with  a  still  greater 
generalization  and  announced  the  truth  that  these  laws 
were  one  and  inseparable,  and  named  the  one  great  law 
the  Law  of  Substance.   (See  Riddle  of  the  Universe,^ 

Even  great  intellects  seldom  grasp  a  new  great  truth 
clearl)'  and  wholly  at  once.  The  men  above  named  were 
discoverers,  but  they  never  discovered  all  of  truth — not 
even  all  of  the  great  truths  which  they  gave  to  the  scien- 
tific world.  The  ghost  of  the  old  dualism  stood  between 
them  and  the  realit}^  and  obscured  their  vision.  They^ 
laid  the  ghost  under  the  name  of  *' spirit,"  but  reinstated 
it  under  the  names  of  "force  "and  "energy."  The}'  could 
not  rid  themselves  of  the  ancient  fallac}'  that  there  was 
an  immaterial  entity  "within  or  back  of  matter"  that 
caused  its  motions.*  Even  the  great  Haeckel,  the  "first 
apostle  "of  what  he  calls  Scientific  Monism,  is  apparently 
not  wholly  free  from  the  great  dualistic  delusion.  Note 
this  from  his  19th  Thesis  :  "In  our  modern  science,  the 
idea  'God'  can  be  determined  onl}-  so  far  as  we  see  in 
'  God  '  the  last  [i.  e.,  ultimate,  usuall}'  called  the  "  first"  ] 
indiscernible  cause  of  all  things,  the  *  unconscious  hypo- 
thetical '  07'ig-inal  cause  of  substance.'"  To  my  miud,  the 
admission  that  there  is  substance  and  an  original  cause  oi 
substance,  is  dualism  and  not  monism.  An  "original 
cause"  is  one  which  originates,  and  must  have  existed 
prior  to  that  which  it  originated,  and  so  is  distinct  from 


60  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

and  independent  of  it — exactly  what  dualistic  theolo^ists 
believe.  True,  Haeckel  says  his  "God  "is  an  "uncon- 
scious hypothetical  origfinal  cause,*'  but  the  theological 
"God"  is  also  hypothetical  and  may  be  unconscious  for 
all  that  anybody  knows  about  it  (or  "him").  In  either 
case  the  material  universe  is  one  thing*  and  an  "  original 
cause"  of  it  is  another,  making  two  things,  which  is  the 
essence  of  dualism.  Again  :  the  Professor  says  in  his 
20th  Thesis,  "We  consider  matter  and  power  (or  'matter 
and  energy' — body  ««(^  spirit)  the  inseparable  attributes 
of  substance  (Spinoza)."  In  this  statement  he  fairly  en- 
dorses the  essential  postulate  of  spiritism  when  he  gives 
the  terms  "  body  and  spirit  "  as  equivalent  to  the  terms 
matter  and  energy.  The  difference  between  Haeckel's 
"spirit"  and  the  spirit  of  the  spiritists  is  that  his  is  sup- 
posed to  be  impersonal  and  unconscious,  while  theirs  is 
supposed  to  be  personal  and  conscious;  both  are  supposed 
to  be  "immortal,"  for  the  law  of  substance  secures  eter- 
nal existence  for  Haeckel's  "energy=--spirit."  But  the 
good  Professor  is  very  near  the  realit)%  as  appears  to  me. 
One  more  forward  step,  and  he  will  find  real  monism. 

§  39. — THE    LAW   OF   UNITY. 

In  reality  Mayer's  law  of  the  constancy  or  conservation 
of  energy  is  but  a  partial  expression  of  the  law  of  the 
Constancy  of  Matter,  and  the  terminology  of  the  formula 
is  defective  and  misleading,  for  it  implies  the  existence  of 
an  immaterial  entity  "  within  and  back  of  matter"  as  the 
cause  of  its  movements — the  phenomena  of  nature,  when 
in  reality  there  is  no  such  entity.  Nothing  is  needed  as 
an  "original  cause  "  of  motion,  for  motion  cannot  be  ori- 
ginated or  initiated  any  more  than  can  matter.  Substi- 
tute the  word  motion  for  "energy  "in  Mayer's  expression 


SPIRITIvSM  AS  A  WORKING  HYPOTHESIS.     61 

of  the  law  and  we  have  a  true  scientific  principle,  though 
only  one  subordinate  to  the  more  complete  generalization 
known  as  the  law  of  Constancy  of  Matter.  It  should  read, 
'*the  Constancy  or  Conservation  of  Motion";  or,  as  I 
prefer.  The  Uncreatahility  and  Indestructibility  of  Motion, 
That  is,  motion  is  never  initiated  or  annihilated. 

Substitute  the  word  form  (shape)  for  "energ7,"  and 
we  have  another  law  subordinate  to  the  law  of  Constancy 
of  Matter.  Form,  no  more  than  motion,  is  ever  initiated 
or  annihilated.  Forms,  like  motions,  are  correlated,  and 
the  great  Law  of  Correlation  applies  to  both  Motion  and 
Form,  but  to  "spirit"  and  "force"  it  cannot  apply,  be- 
cause the3'  are  "  air}'  nothings." 

The  Law  of  Unit}^  is  this  :  Form  and  Motion  are  Insep- 
arable Attributes  of  Matter  ;  there  is  no  matter  without 
form  and  motion,  and  no  form  or  motion  without  matter  ; 
hence  the  law  of  the  Constancy  of  Matter  comprehends 
the  subordinate  laws  above  mentioned.  I  would  substi- 
tute forHaeckel's  "substance"  the  word  matter^  because 
that  word  applies  to  matter  in  motion,  which  is  all  the 
Professor's  word  "substance"  in  reality  implies,  while  it 
seems  to  imply  that  something  else,  "energy,"  plus  mat- 
ter equals  "substance;"  and  for  his  "Law  of  Substance" 
I  would  substitute,  The  Law  of  the  Uficreatability  and 
Indestructibility  of  Matter — which  includes  motion,  for 
it  is  a  constant  attribute  of  matter— an  essential  of  it  — 
"inertia,"  like  "  force  "  and  "energy  "  entities,  being  an 
illusion.  The  "one  step  more"  suggested  above  is  that 
of  affirming  matter  in  motion,  not  a  "force"  entity  and 
matter,  to  be  the  causative  basis  or  "sub-stance"  of  all  the 
phenomena  of  nature — chemical,  mechanical,  physiolog- 
ical, intellectual,  emotional  and  moral — a  truly  scientific 
monism,  instead  of  a  mere  change  of  terms. 


62  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

This  theory,  I  believe  I  was  the  first  person  to  enun- 
ciate, which  I  did  in  1904.  So  far  as  I  know,  no  scientist 
or  other  person  has  ever  positively  denied  the  existence 
of  force  and  energ^y,  affirmed  the  impossibility  of  either 
initiating-  or  annihilating-,  or  in  way  increasing  or  dimin- 
ishing the  totality  of  motion  in  nature,  and  affirmed  that 
''the  cause  of  motion  is  not  force,  but  motion-,''^  that  is,  the 
modes  of  motion  b}^  their  correlation  are  sequences  of  one 
another.  Prof.  Gore,  of  Manchester,  Eng.,  has  come 
nearer  to  it  than  any  other  author  that  I  have  read. 

If  any  reader  of  this  can  direct  me  to  any  published 
statement  of  this  view  which  antedates  mine  of  1904,  or 
even  this  of  September,  1906, 1  shall  be  grateful  to  him  if 
he  will  kindly  do  so. 

§  40. — SPIRITISM    AND    OCCULTISM. 

As  a  hypothesis  upon  which  to  explain  the  rationale  of 
whatever  of  natural  phenomena  is  mysterious,  spiritism 
originates  in  the  minds  of  men  when  the}^  first  begin  to 
recog-nize  the  relationship  of  cause  and  effect,  and  con- 
tinues up  into  the  times-  of  the  highest  intellectual  de- 
velopment. Primitive  man,  of  all  races  and  all  coun- 
tries, early  noticed  that  the  dry  leaves  upon  the  ground 
were  often  suddenly  lifted  and  carried  along  without  vis- 
ible cause;  the  trees  of  his  native  forest  were  bended  this 
way  and  that,  by  a  mighty  invisible  power,  and  often 
they  were  violently  torn  from  the  soil,  or  broken  off,  and 
thrown  to  the  ground,  as  an  infuriated  man  would  break 
down  or  uproot  a  sapling  no  thicker  than  his  thumb — the 
invisible  power  had  passions  like  unto  his  own.  The  sea 
would  be  suddenly  aroused  from  its  placidity  and  rolled 
in  billows  toward  the  beach  by  an  invisible  power  that 
he  could  only  in  awe  call  omnipotent.     He  called  this 


SPIRITISM  AS  A  WORKING  HYPOTHESIS.     63 

invisible  power  "spirit,"  the  wind.  Man  noticed  that  by 
his  breath  he  could  mov^e  the  dust,  leaves  and  other  light 
objects,  and  even  make  tiny  waves  upon  the  brook  from 
which  he  drank,  just  as  the  wind  moved  the  trees  and  the 
g-reat  ocean  ;  his  breath,  too,  was  "spirit,"  and  we  yet 
call  our  breathing"  re-s^/>-ation.  His  spirit  was  feeble — 
the  other  was  the  "Great  Spirit."  "And  the  Spirit  of 
Elohim  moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters."  (Gen.  i:2.) 
Man  could  send  forth  his  breath — spirit — this  way  or  that 
as  he  "willed,"  and  so  he  inferred  that  the  greater  breath 
came  and  went  by  an  act  of  will — "the  wind  bloweth 
where  it  listeth" — a  better  rendering:  "  The  Spirit  goeth 
where  he  willeth." 

So  man,  even  in  this  age  of  science,  whenever  unable 
to  see  a  cause  for  any  phenomenon,  finds  "spirit"  a  con- 
venient explanation.  Whatever  is  "hidden"  as  to  its 
origin  and  mysterious  as  to  its  ways,  is  classed  as  occult 
and  supposed  to  be  the  manifestation  of  "spirit "  of  some 
kind.  But  gradually  from  prehistoric  times  when  anim- 
ism was  universal,  one  by  one  the  phenomena  of  nature 
have  been  discovered  to  be  parts  of  an  invariable  succes- 
sion of  sequences  and  not  the  spontaneous  and  sporadic 
creation  of  any  "spirit"  entit)^  "within  or  back  of  mat- 
ter," until  onl}^  a  remnant  is  now  believed  by  intelligent 
people  to  be  of  "spirit"  volitional  origin.  And  a  few  see 
a  writing  on  the  wall  which  foretells  the  time  almost  at 
hand  when  a// phenomena  of  nature,  including  the  men- 
tal and  not  excepting  the  "  will  "  of  man,  will  be  known 
to  be  natural  and  inevitable  sequences  ot  preceding  phe- 
nomena, and  the  cause  of  every  effect  itself  an  effect. 

Men  seem  to  be  intoxicated  with  a  whimsical  prejudice 
against  what  they  unwarrantedly  stigmatize  as  "mere 


64  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

dead  matter,"  Some  even  close  their  eyes  and  declare  that 
matter  does  not  exist — that  '*all  is  spirit!  "  If  they  mean 
by  *'dead  matter"  inactive  matter,  they  are  mistaken 
as  to  the  facts,  for  all  matter  is  incessantly  active.  Men 
speak  of  matter  as  g^ross,  as  though  they  had  found  the 
ultimate,  indivisible  particle — the  atom — to  be  as  big  as 
a  billiard  ball.  They  speak  of  matter  as  base  and  evil,  as 
though  the  gflorious  galaxy  of  the  heavens,  the  smiling 
flower,  the  beautiful  bird,  the  wonderful  human  body,  and 
all  else  we  see  are  not  matter.  The  truth  is,  matter  holds 
in  its  embrace  the  destiny  of  all  that  is  or  ever  will  be. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

"SCIENTIFIC    ARGUMENTS"    CRITICISED. 

§41. — THE   MECHANICAL   HYPOTHESIS. 

All  are  but  p'arts  of  one  stupendous  Whole, 
Whose  body  Nature  is,  and  God  the  Soul. — Pope, 

A  FAVORITE  argument  of  those  of  a  scientific,  or 
t/  V  rather  a  philosophical,  trend  of  mind,  who  be- 
lieve in  the  existence  of  a  spirit  entity  or  soul  tempora- 
rily and  unessentially  connected  with  the  human  body,  is 
this :  The  material  orgfanization  of  man,  with  its  bony 
frame-work,  jointed  levers,  tubes,  bellows,  nerve-wire 
conductors,  gfrinding"  mill,  double  camera  with  their  lenses 
and  iris-shutters  and  sensitive  plates  under  the  brows  and 
their  dark  room  and  developing  apparatus  and  chemicals 
in  the  skull,  etc. — the  adaptation  of  material  means  to 
mechanical  and  chemical  ends — is  a  machine;  a  machine 
is  not  self-operative,  but  requires  force  to  initiate  and 
maintain  its  movements,  and  mind  or  intelligence  to  di- 
rect its  movements  so  as  to  accomplish  proper  results. 
The  human  body,  therefore  as  a  machine,  is  incapable  of 
action  without  the  vital  force,  and  cannot  adapt  its  action 
to  accomplish  useful  ends  without  an  intelligent,  inde- 
pendent operator,  and  that  operator  we  call  the  soul  or 
spirit,  which  is  not  dependent  upon  the  machine  for  its 
existence,  but  uses  it  for  economic  reasons  only. 

One  defect  of  this  alleged  argument  is,  that  it  ** proves 
too  much"  if  it  proves  anything.  If  we  admit  its  validity 
we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  not  only  man,  but  all 
things  have  souls— spirit  operators,  which  carries  us  back 

(65) 


66  A  FUTURE  LIFE  ? 

in  our  philosophy  to  the  animism  of  our  prehistoric  fore- 
fathers. The  body  of  the  dog"  is  such  a  machine,  hence 
the  dogr  has  a  soul  or  spirit ;  the  oyster  is  such  a  machine 
and  it,  also,  has  a  soul;  the  busy  microbe  is  a  machine, 
and  so  has  a  spirit;  and  those  ^'simple,  jelly-like  dots  of 
almost  homogeneous  plasm — the  protozoa,"  bodies  of  a 
single  cell  each,  simple  though  they  be,  are  machines  and 
so  must  each  have  a  spirit  to  operate  it.  The  great  oaks 
and  palm-trees  are  machines,  and,  as  the  ancients  believed 
emphatically,  there  are  spirits  in  trees;  and  so  of  all  the 
veg'etable  world. 

We  may  not  stop  even  here;  for  the  earth,  with  its  won- 
derful swing  in  its  orbit,  ever  true  to  its  unbeaten  path 
around  the  sun  which  affords  the  change  of  seasons,  and 
its  equally  wonderful  daily  revolution  upon  its  axis,  more 
exact  in  its  measurement  of  time  than  the  finest  man-made 
clock;  with  its  rocky  skeleton  supporting  its  clayey  flesh, 
its  great  river-veins  and  rivulet-capillaries;  its  rythmic 
breathing  of  air  in  and  out  of  its  great  lungs,  the  vegeto- 
animal  kingdom,  its  maintainance  of  evironment  suited 
to  the  necessities  of  a  wonderful  world  of  plant  and  ani- 
mal life — the  earth  is  a  machine,  and  it  must  have  a  soul, 
a  spirit  commensurate  with  its  magnitude,  power  and  ac- 
complishments ;  and  being  so  great,  its  spirit  must  be  a 
g:od  or  goddess— being  *'the  mother  of  all  living,"  its 
spirit  is  feminine,  and  once  was  called  *'Eve  ;"  she  was 
apparently  of  more  importance  than  the  sun,  moon  and 
stars,  and  so  she  has  been  called  Maia,  mother  of  the 
gods,  and  Mary  "Mother  of  God." 

The  solar  system  is  a  machine  of  correlated  parts — it 
must  have  an  operating  spirit ;  even  the  entire  material 
universe  is  a  machine,  and  must  be  operated  by  an  infinite, 
omnipotent,  omniscient  spirit,  and  this  is  what  such  phi- 


^'SCIENTIFIC  ARGUMENTS"  CRITICISED.     67 

losophers  conceive  to  be  "God."  Let  me  quote  a  declara- 
tion of  an  ultra  radical  of  these  philosophers.  In  Thesis 
19  of  his  Universal  Monistic  Alliance^  Prof.  Ernst  Haeckel 
says  :  "In  our  modern  science,  the  idea  'God'  can  be  de- 
termined only  so  far  as  we  see  in  'God 'the  last  indis- 
cernible cause  of  all  things,  the  unconscious  hypothetical 
'origfinal  cause  of  substance.'  "  This  is  the  "  Immanent 
God"  of  Unilarianism,  the  God  of  pantheistic  deism  less 
consciousness — a  kind  of  g-asiform  /^vertebrate,  as  com- 
pared with  the  theistic  God  to  whom  Haeckel  applies  the 
epithet  "  gasiform  vertebrate." 

Even  the  hypothetical  atom — the  individual  far  excel- 
lence— must  have  a  spirit  to  account  for  its  "selective  af- 
finity," its  chemical  likes  and  dislikes,  its  "sensibility" — 
even  the  great  so-called  materialistic  monist.  Prof.  Ernst 
Haeckel,  declares:  "In  conversation  with  distinguished 
physicists  and  chemists  I  have  often  found  that  they  will 
not  hear  a  word  about  a  'soul'  in  the  atom.  In  my  opin- 
ion, however,  this  mtist  necessarily  he  assumed  to  explain 
the  si7nflest  physical  and  chemical  processes,^''  {Wonders 
of  Life^  page  82,  Eng.  edition.)  This  is  exactly  the  spir- 
itistic hypothesis — the  basis  of  spiritism,  the  essence  of 
dualism,  the  antithesis  of  monism. 

§  42. — MONISTIC  VIEW  OF  THE   MECHANICAL  THEORY. 

This  conception  lof  "God"  as  the  soul  of  the  universe 
and  "chemical  affinity"  as  the  soul  of  the  atom  embraces 
the  subordinate  conception  that  these  cosmic  and  atomic 
souls  are  inseparable  from  and  dependent  upon  matter  or 
"substance,"  and  cannot  exist  separate  and  apart  from 
matter  as  independent  entities  ;  and  the  same  philosophy 
conceives  of  the  existence  of  a  human  soul  with  the  same 
limitations.     It  follows  from  this  that  the  existence  of 


68  A  FUTURE  LIFE  ? 

God  (the  cosmic  soul)  before  the  creation  of  the  mate- 
rial universe  was  impossible,  and  this  involves  a  contra- 
diction of  another  dictum  of  this  same  philosophy,  that 
this  *'God"  is  *'the  original  cause  of  substance"— mat- 
ter plus  motion — in  reality,  matter  in  motion.  And  it  also 
follows  from  this  conception  of  a  human  soul,  that  this 
soul  is  not  immortal  in  the  sense  of  living  as  a  personal 
independent  entity  after  the  death  of  the  body.  Regard- 
ing" Haeckel  as  the  most  scientific  and  greatest  living 
representative  and  exponent  of  these  doctrines,  I  will  re- 
peat here  some  of  his  words  most  pertinent  thereto : 

§43. — HABCKEI.   ON   THE   SOUI.   AND   IMMORTAI.ITY. 

From  the  Riddle  of  the  Universe;  page  89:  *' What  we 
call  soul  is,  in  my  opinion,  a  natural  phenomenon.  T 
therefore  consider  psychology  to  be  a  branch  of  natural 
science — a  section  of  physiology."  Page  210 :  *'  If  we  take 
a  comprehensive  glance  at  all  the  modern  anthropology, 
psychology  and  cosmology,  teach  with  regard  to  athanat- 
ism  [doctrine  of  immortality],  we  are  forced  to  this  defi- 
nite conclusion:  'The  belief  in  the  immortality  of  the 
human  soul  is  a  dogma  which  is  in  hopeless  contradiction 
with  the  most  important  truths  of  modern  science.'" 

From  ^  Universal  Monistic  Alliance,  Thesis  17:  ''The 
soul  {^psyche)  of  man,  considered  as  a  separate  supernatu- 
ral being  by  both  mystic  metaphysics  and  theology,  due 
to  the  astounding  progress  of  modern  biology,  especially 
that  of  comparative  research  of  the  brain,  has  been  recog- 
nized as  the  totality  of  brain  functions.  The  action  of 
the  higher  soul  organ,  or  thinking  organ,  being  a  certain 
area  of  the  cortex  of  the  cerebrum,  with  man  goes  on  ac- 
cording to  the  same  laws  of  psycho-physics  as  with  the 
other  mammals,  and  especially  the  anthropoids,  next  in 
relationship  to  man.     This  activity,  of  course,  becomes 


^'SCIENTIFIC  ARGUMENTS"  CRITICISED.      69 

extinct  in  death,  and  in  our  days  it  appears  to  be  perfect- 
ly absurd  to  expect,  nevertheless,  a  personal  immortality 
of  the  soul." 

Without  here  controverting-  the  machanical  theory,  I 
pass  this  monistic  view  as  leading:  inevitably  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  human  soul  cannot  and  therefore  will 
not  survive  the  death  of  the  body.  But  there  is  another 
view  of  the  mechanical  theory  that  must  be  reckoned  with 
before  we  can  arrive  at  a  final  comprehensive  conclusion. 

§  44, — DUALISTIC   VIEW   OF   THE    MECHANICAL   THEORY. 

A  largre  majority  of  those  who  believe  in  the  machine 
theory  accept  the  dualistic  view;  that  is,  they  belieVe  the 
material  human  bod}-  to  be  a  machine  whose  movements 
and  physiological  activities  are  due  to  ''vital  force,"  an 
inferior  sort  of  mortal  spook  which  is  neither  chemical 
nor  physical,  but  a  force  sui generis — not  a  correlation  of 
exceeding-1)^  complex  chemical  and  physical  activities  in 
a  specific  environment,  but  a  unique  force  which  super- 
sedes and  displaces  the  ordinary  so-called  forces  of  inor- 
gfanic  or  so-called  dead  matter ;  and  that  the  soul  or  spirit 
is  a  distinct  entity  essentially  independent  of  the  body, 
but  using"  it  probationally  as  a  convenient  means  of  ac- 
quiring knowledg-e  and  development  fittingit  for  a  higher 
plane  of  existence  in  a  life  after  death  without  the  use 
or  need  of  such  a  material  machine. 

The  advocates  of  this  theory  often  use  this  supposed 
analog}^  to  illustrate  it :  "The  bod)^  is  like  unto  a  steam 
eng-ine,  and  the  spirit  like  unto  the  eng-ineer  who  directs 
its  operation  to  accomplish  that  which  is  for  his  own  bene- 
fit ;  when  the  engine  wears  out  or  the  engineer  ceases  to 
use  it,  he  does  not  die,  but  continues  to  exist  independ- 
ently of  the  machine."    And  then  the  advocate,  perhaps 


70  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

unconsciously,  adopts  the  sophism  of  proving-  the  fact 
by  the  assumed  analogy,  disregarding  (often  ignorant  of) 
the  truth  that  the  fact  must  be  first  established  and  the 
validity  of  the  analogy  rested  upon  the  fact  and  not  the 
verity  of  the  supposed  fact  upon  the  assumed  analogy — 
that  analogy  itself  must  rest  upon  proof,  and  when  so 
established  is  unnecessary  as  proo/ 3,t\d  useful  only  as  il- 
lustration— a  substitution  of  the  more  simple  or  familiar 
as  an  easy  means  of  imparting  a  clear  knowledge  of  some- 
thing" known  to  be  similar  but  more  abstruse  or  less  fa- 
miliar to  the  learner. 

Another  favorite  illustration,  often,  too,  mistaken  for 
proof,  of  some  dualistic  spiritists,  is  that  of  assuming  an 
analog-y  between  a  musical  instrument  and  the  human 
body  and  between  the  musician  who  plays  upon  it  and 
the  spirit.  I  once  listened  to  a  lecture  by  a  Los  Angeles 
physician,  who  passes  with  some  Spiritualists  as  not  only 
a  scientific  reasoner  but  as  a  *'  wise"  man  ;  he  made  this 
analog-y  serve  as  his  principal  argument  in  support  of  the 
theory  that  the  spirit  and  the  body  were  two  distinct  en- 
tities, and  the  ^'spirit  is  the  man"  while  the  body  is  a 
mere  machine  or  instrument  for  the  temporary  use  of  the 
spirit  man.  The  speaker  proceeded  with  perfect  confi- 
dence, apparently  wholly  unconscious  that  anyone  could 
doubt  there  was  any  such  analogy,  and  that  his  entire 
argument  rested  upon  a  mere  assumption  that  itself  was 
as  much  in  need  of  proof  as  the  proposition  he  thought 
to  support  and  even  demonstrate  by  it ;  and  he  is  not  the 
only  reputed  '* well-posted  man"  who  is  blind  to  the  soph- 
istry of  this  kind  of  argumentation.  It  was  the  basis  of 
all  ancient  mythology,  and  is  the  sandy  foundation  of 
many  modern  theologfical  theories. 

The  speaker  described  the  supposed  analogy  and  then 


^'SCIENTIFIC  ARGUMENTS"  CRITICISED,     fl 

announced  the  fact  that  thoug^h  the  piano  be  perfect  in 
every  particular  it  would  never  produce  a  single  note  of 
sound,  much  less  a  systematized  complex  series  of  chords, 
except  when  manipulated  by  the  human  hands,  directed 
by  the  human  spirit.  But  he  did  not  mention  the  equally 
sig-nificant  fact  that  the  human  spirit  without  material 
hands  and  a  piano  could  never  produce  the  same  kind  of 
music,  nor  that  the  man  had  a  living  brain  while  the  pi- 
ano had  not. 

The  primary  problem  to  be  solved  before  this  analogy 
can  be  logically  and  rationally  used  even  as  an  illustra- 
tion, is  this:  Is  there  really  any  analogy  between  the  or- 
ganism of  the  man  and  that  of  the  piano — are  the  mate- 
rials of  their  structure,  their  manner  of  construction,  re- 
pair and  reproduction,  their  adaptation  to  ends,  their  ope- 
rating causes  or  "forces,"  their  methods  of  action,  the 
same  or  similar  ?  And  is  there  really  any  analogy  be- 
tween a  man,  even  if  a  duad  of  body  and  spirit,  or  a  triad 
of  bod}^  soul  and  spirit,  and  a  human  spirit  exclusively  ? 
And  is  the  spirit  of  a  man  related  to  the  action  of  his 
body  or  his  brain,  the  same  or  similar  to  the  relation  of 
the  whole  man  to  the  piano  ? 

It  will  be  seen  to  be  evident  in  these  questions  that  we 
roust  know  that  all  these  things  actually  exist  before  we 
can  compare  them  with  one  another  ;  we  know  the  piano 
and  the  man  as  a  living  being  exist— we  cannot  doubt  it ; 
but  do  we  knoiv  that  such  a  thing  as  an  independent  spirit 
exists  in  man — a  sort  of  "first "  or  uncaused  cause  of  his 
bodily  or  mental  activities?  If  not,  the  citing  of  the  an- 
alogy is  illogical,  unreasonable  and  sophistical,  and  so 
unjustifiable  for  any  purpose  ;  if  we  do  know  it  exists,  the 
analogy  is  unnecessary  to  "prove"  that  it  exists.    There- 


72  A  FUTURE  LIFE  ? 

fore,  without  either  admitting"  or  denj^ing"  the  existence 
of  a  spirit  in  the  human  body,  we  are  logically  bound 
to  reject  the  piano  and  the  machine  assumed  analogy  as 
proof  or  in  any  degree  evidence  of  its  existence. 

As  to  the  question  of  a  future  life,  these  mechanical 
theories  do  not  answer  it.  If  we  admit  the  truth  of  the 
monistic  theory  of  a  dependent  immanent  spirit  or  soul, 
we  are  forced  to  den}^  any  after-life  without  a  resurrection 
of  the  body  upon  which  it  is  dependent ;  and,  if  we  admit 
the  truth  of  the  dualistic  theory,  we  are  justified  only  in 
believing  in  the  fossibility^  but  not  the  actuality  or  even 
the  probability  of  a  future  unembodied  spirit  life,  unless 
we  have  real  evidence  of  it  added  to  the  theory.  As  to 
the  argument  from  these  analogies,  if  we  admit  their  va- 
lidit}^  we  are  forced  logically  to  the  conclusion  that  they 
weigh  against  rather  than  for  the  doctrine  of  immortality; 
for  the  engineer  and  the  musician  ultimately  die,  and,  if 
they  be  real  analogues  of  the  spirit,  the  latter  must  also 
ultimately  die.  We  are  bound  to  carry  out  the  analogy 
to  its  legitimate  end.  But  I  do  not  admit  that  this  sup- 
posed analogy  exists,  nor  that  it  is  anj^  evidence  whatever 
for  or  against  the  existence  or  future  life  of  a  spirit. 

§  45. — THK   ARGUMENT   BY   ANAI.YSIS. 

The  object  of  this  dicussion,  let  it  be  remembered,  as  I 
stated  at  the  start,  is  not  to  try  to  prove  or  disprove 
that  man  is  destined  to  a  life  after  the  event  called  death, 
but  to  investigate  the  grounds  upon  which  belief  in  a  fu- 
ture life  has  been  and  is  now  based,  leaving  each  reader 
to  judge  for  himself  as  to  their  efficiency  or  inefficiency. 

One  way  some  spiritists  have  of  "demonstrating"  the 
existence  of  a  soul  or  spirit  entity  within  the  material 
human  body  is  what  I  shall  call  that  of  analysis  and  ex- 


^'SCIENTIFIC  ARGUMENTS"  CRITICISED.     73 

elusion.  This  was  considered  by  the  above-mentioned 
doctor  to  be  a  strongfhold  in  his  lecture.  He  dissected  a 
man  substantially  as  follows  : 

**  We  take  off  his  skin  and  lay  it  upon  this  table.  Is 
that  the  man  ?  Of  course  not.  We  take  off  the  entire 
muscular  system  and  lay  it  upon  the  table.  Is  that  the 
man  ?  O  no.  So  we  do  with  the  venous  system,  the 
arterial  system,  the  digestive  system  and  the  nervous 
system,  and  we  find  that  neither  of  these  is  the  man.  The 
bony  skeleton  is  all  that  is  left,  and  surely  that  is  not 
the  man — the  thinking:,  free-willing-  ego.  What  is  it  then 
which  wills  and  thinks  ?  Let  the  materialist  answer  if 
he  can  !  "  The  speaker  paused  for  a  repl)^  and  I  laconic- 
ally answered,  *'  The  brain."  With  a  haughty  snort  of  af" 
fected  disgfust  the  doctor  cried  out:  **  The  drain  ?  Dead 
matter  think  f^'  '*No,"  I  replied,  '*not  dead  matter,  but 
the  living-  brain."  *' No,"  said  the  speaker,  '*the  brain 
is  only  the  organ  through  which  spirit  manifests  mind, 
thought,  will,  etc.  ;  it  is  the  instrument  of  the  spirit." 
And  then  proceeded  to  "  prove  "  it  by  the  use  of  the  an- 
alogy of  the  musician  and  the  piano,  discussed  above  in 
§  44,  third  paragraph. 

This  is  another  of  those  sophistical  "arguments"  that 
are  so  convenient  for  superficial  reasoners  and  so  convinc- 
ing to  superficial  thinkers.  Let  us  tr>^  this  method  upon 
a  tree,  for  instance.  Remove  all  the  leaves  and  lay  them 
aside  in  a  heap  :  are  they  the  tree  ?  No.  Strip  off  the 
bark  and  lay  it  aside  in  a  pile  :  is  that  the  tree?  No.  So 
proceed  part  by  part  till  the  tree  is  separated  into  piles  of 
leaves,  of  bark,  of  boughs,  of  roots,  and  the  woody  trunk 
only  remains,  and  neither  it  nor  any  of  the  other  parts  is 
the  tree.     Does  that  prove  that  the  real  tree  is  a  spirit 


74  A  FUTURE   LIFE? 

and  has  eluded  our  observation  in  the  analysis  ?  A  tree 
is  a  complex  agfgrreg-ation  of  correlated  parts  correlated 
with  a  specific  complex  environment,  and  so  is  a  man. 

No,  this  argfument  will  not  do.  It  reminds  me  of  the 
bo}^  who  killed  and  dissected  a  pig"  to  find  its  squeal,  and 
failing-  to  find  it,  concluded  that  during-  the  operation  the 
squeal  had  escaped  unobserved  and  was  elsewhere. 

§  46, — THE   SYNTHETICAL    EXPERIMENT. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  a  man  must  be  more  than  a 
complex  orgfanization  of  matter  under  chemical  and  phys- 
ical laws,  because  the  chemist  and  the  mechanic  cannot 
build  a  man,  or  even  a  single  org-anic  cell,  from  the  '*raw 
materials" — the  chemical  elements  and  inorg-anic  com- 
pounds, that  will  manifest  the  phenomena  of  life.  But 
this  arg-ument  also  is  fallacious.  All  chemical  action  is 
strbject  to  conditions,  and  all  that  any  chemist  can  do  to 
effect  chemical  combination  or  disintegration,  is  to  sup- 
ply the  conditions  under  which  the  desired  action  invari- 
ably takes  place.  These  conditions  have  to  be  discovered 
by  observation  and  experiment.  Much  progress  has  been 
made  in  the  discovery  of  the  conditions  under  which  vari- 
ous chemical  chang-es  occur;  but  the  field  of  possibility  is 
apparently  well-nig-h  infinite,  and  there  are  vast  reg-ions 
on  the  plane  of  simple  chemical  action  that  are  yet  unex- 
plored, while  in  the  realm  of  hig-hly  complicated  actions 
and  reactions  the  chemical  explorer  has  as  yet  scarcely 
set  foot.  Besides,  the  human  mind  itself  is  subject  to 
conditions  with  limitations,  and  it  is  not  only  possible 
but  higfhly  probable  that  there  have  been  and  still  are 
conditions  upon  which  many  of  the  phenomena  of  nature 
depend  that  are  beyond  the  reach  or  capability  of  man's 
limited  powers  of  observation  and  means  of  experimenta- 


"SCIENTIFIC  ARGUMENTS"  CRITICISED.     75 

tion,  so  that  thoug-h  the  chemist  cannot  now  nor  ever  can 
produce  all  the  conditions  upon  which  the  transmutation 
of  chemical  into  physiolog-ical  activities  depend,  we  are 
not  justified  in  concluding"  that  nature  itself  does  not,  or 
cannot,  produce  those  conditions  just  as  well  as  nature 
produces  the  conditions  upon  which  simpler  chemical  ac- 
tions depend  and  occur  without  man's  interference. 

§  47. — ANOTHER    ANALOGY   ARGUMENT. 

The  spirit  and  the  material  bodj^  have  often  been  lik- 
ened to  a  house  and  its  tenant — '*  houses  of  clay  "  as  tem- 
porary homes  of  immaterial  human  being-s,  spirits.  And 
this  assumed  analog")^  is  often  accepted  as  evidence  of  the 
existence  of  an  independent  spirit  entit}^  within  the  bod}', 
a  sophism  so  apparent  that  it  should  be  instantly  recog-- 
nized  by  everyone  capable  of  even  the  simplest  reason- 
ing:. It  is  the  same  fallacy  as  that  of  the  assumed  anal- 
og-y  of  the  eng-ine  and  eng-ineer  and  of  the  piano  and  the 
musician  (§44),  that  of  assuming-  the  truth  of  the  thing"  to 
be  proved  and  using:  the  assumption  as  proof — simpl}'  a 
"  begg-ing"  of  the  question."  First,  to  establish  such  an- 
alog-y,  the  existence  of  a  spirit  inhabiting:  the  bodv  as  a 
man  inhabits  a  house  must  be  proved  by  facts,  and  then 
the  analog:}'  would  not  be  needed  as  evidence,  nnd  would 
be  useful  onh'  as  illustration  in  teaching:.  Secondly,  the 
analog-y,  if  admitted,  falls  much  short  of  illustrating:  the 
spiritistic  theory,  to  say  nothing"  of  proving"  its  correct- 
ness. For  in  the  case  of  the  man  and  the  house,  the}-  are 
both  material  entities  plainly  observable  by  our  senses, 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  "spirit"  in  the  "house  of 
clay"  is  not  cog"nizable  by  any  of  our  senses;  the  man  does 
not  necessarily  occupy  the  same  house  from  his  birth  to 
death,  or  carry  it  about  with  him  from  place  to  place,  as 


76  A  P^UTURE  LIFE? 

the  supposed  spirit  is  supposed  to  do ;  when  his  house  is 
destroyed  he  does  not  change  his  plane  of  being-,  but  goes 
into  another;  houses  are  not  "  propagated  "  or  built  in  a 
wa3^  at  all  similar  to  the  propagation  and  growth  of  the 
body  ;  and  in  every  point  but  the  single  one  of  living  in 
the  body,  there  is  absence  of  similarity. 

It  is  often  said  that  when  a  man  dies  his  spirit  lays  off 
the  bod}^  as  a  man  lays  off  a  worn-out  coat ;  but  this  is 
only  another  form  of  the  assumed  house  analogy,  and  the 
foregoing  criticism  of  that  fallacy  applies  to  this  as  well. 
And  there  are  many  other  forms  of  it,  of  which  the  same 
may  be  said. 

The  conclusion  seems  to  me  to  be  clear,  that  whether 
the  spiritistic  hypothesis  be  true  or  false,  these  '*  argu- 
ments" from  assumed  analogies  are  illogical,  unreasona- 
ble, sophistical,  and  worthless  for  or  against  it. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

n^^W  THOUGHT  THEORIES  OF  THE  SOUL 
AISD  A   FUTURE  LIFE. 

§48. — WHAT   IS    *'nEW  thought"? 

^^^^KW  Thoug-ht  is  a  name  much  used  of  late,  but 
1  ^  just  what  the  term  means  (in  this  special  use  of  it) 
not  even  its  professed  exemplars  and  propagandists  seem 
to  know.  It  is,  apparently,  a  sort  of  blanket  phrase  used 
to  embrace  all  the  odds  and  ends  of  metaphysics  and  bi- 
zarre practices — a  sort  of  '''omnium  gatheruin  "  of  old  and 
new  notions,  indistinct  and  unclassified,  with  just  enough 
of  the  results  of  modern  scientific  investigation  in  it  to 
give  intellectual  flavor,  and  enough  of  ancient  transcend- 
entalism in  it  to  give  a  m3^stic  and  religious  flavor. 

Nothing  quicker  throws  a  Christian  Scientist  into  a  fit 
of  "explaining  "  than  to  tell  him  that  '*  Christian  Science 
is  neither  Christian  nor  science."  And  this  laconism  may 
be  slightly  varied  to  apply  it  to  New  Thought,  by  saying 
that  "  it  is  neither  new  nor  thought."  It  has  been  often 
confessed  that  "  New  Thought  is,  after  all,  old  thought," 
and  I  believe  that,  for  the  most  part,  it  is  not  thought  2X 
all,  but  se7itiment. 

Christian  Science  itself  belongs  to  that  chaos  of  cant 
and  hazy  sentimentalism  termed  New  Thought ;  but  it 
does  not  announce  an}^  theory  of  a  future  life  that  is  dis- 
tinguishable from  those  of  other  forms  of  spiritism,  ex- 

(77) 


78  A  FQTURE  LIFE? 

cept  the  dog-ma  that  "spirit  only  is  real  and  matter  is  an 
error  of  mortal  mind."  Of  course  there  is  no  scientific  ba- 
sis for  this  dogfma  to  rest  upon,  even  if  it  is  character- 
istic of  "Science."  It  rests  solely  upon  the  authority  of 
Mrs.  Eddy.  And  as  for  this  and  a  g-reat  many  other  only 
slig-htly  differing"  New  Thoug-ht  spiritistic  theories  and 
affirmations,  I  will  add  nothing:  to  what  I  have  said  of 
"Spiritistic  Hypotheses  "  in  preceding-  sections  of  this 
discussion  ;  but  there  is  one  hypothesis  really  thoug-h  not 
professedb^  belong-ing-  to  the  New  Thoug-ht,  which  is  set 
forth  by  its  learned  and  ing-enious  author  as  an  avowedly 
scientific  hypothesis,  which  I  will  now  proceed  to  briefly 
discuss.  I  refer  to  the  h)^pothesis  of  the  late  Thomson 
Jay  Hudson,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D,,  that  the  mind  of  man  is  dual: 
that  is,  he  has  two  minds,  one  objective  and  the  mere 
function  of  the  brain  and  mortal ;  the  other  subjective, 
a  distinct  entity  and  immortal. 

§  49.— DR.  Hudson's  hypotheses. 

Dr.  Hudson  wrote  four  very  important  and  interesting: 
books,  in  each  of  which  his  hypothesis  of  the  dual  mind 
and  that  of  the  subjective  mind  a  distinctive  and  immor- 
tal entity,  are  the  central  ideas.  They  are.  The  Law  oj 
Psychic  Phenomena  (which  should  be  read  first),  A  Sci- 
entific  Demonstration  of  the  Future  Life,  The  Divine  Pedi- 
gree of  Man,  and  The  Law  of  Mental  Medicine,  In  order 
that  my  readers  may  know  exactly  what  Dr.  Hudson's 
theories  were,  I  will  quote  his  own  lucid  lang-uag-e  from 
these  works. 

Of  the  Dual  Mind  :  "Man  has,  or  appears  to  have,  two 
minds,  each  endowed  with  separate  and  distinct  attri- 
butes and  powers;  each  capable,  under  certain  conditions, 
of  independent  action.     It  should  be  clearly  understood 


THE  "SUBJECTIVE  MIND^'  THE  '*SOUL."     79 

at  the  outset  that  for  the  purpose  of  arriving"  at  a  correct 
conclusion  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  we  con- 
sider that  man  is  endowed  with  two  distinct  minds,  or 
that  his  mind  possesses  certain  attributes  and  powers 
under  some  conditions,  and  certain  other  attributes  and 
powers  under  other  conditions.  It  is  sufficient  to  know 
that  everything-  happens  just  as  though  he  were  endowed 
with  a  dual  mental  orgfanization." 

*' Under  the  rules  of  correct  reasoning,  therefore,  I 
have  a  right  to  assume  that  man  has  two  minds  ;  and 
the  assumption  is  so  stated  in  its  broadest  terms,  as  the 
first  proposition  of  my  hypothesis.  For  convenience,  I 
shall  designate  the  one  as  the  objective  mind,  and  the 
other  as  the  subjective  mind.  The  second  proposition  is 
that  the  subjective  mind  is  constantly  amenable  to  con- 
trol by  suggestion.  The  third,  or  subsidiary,  proposition 
is,  that  the  subjective  mind  is  incapable  of  inductive  rea- 
soning."— Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena^  pp.  25-6. 

"  In  point  of  fact,  that  which,  for  convenience,  I  have 
chosen  to  designate  as  the  subjective  mind,  appears  to  be 
a  separate  and  distinct  entit)^  and  the  real  distinctive  dif- 
ference between  the  two  minds  seems  to  consist  in  the 
fact  that  the  'objective  mind'  is  merely  the  function  of  the 
physical  brain,  while  the  'subjective  mind'  is  a  distinct 
entity,  possessing  independent  powers  and  functions, 
having  a  mental  organization  of  its  own,  and  being  cap- 
able of  sustaining  an  existence  independently  of  the  body. 

In  other  words,  it  is  the  soul." — p.  30 "The  two 

minds  being  possessed  of  independent  powers  and  func- 
tions, it  follows  as  a  necessary  corollary  that  the  subjec- 
tive mind  of  an  individual  is  as  amenable  to  the  control 
of  his  own  objective  minc5  as  to  the  objective  mind  of  an- 
other."— p.  31 "For  our  boasted  'god-like  rea- 
son' is  of  the  earth,  earthy.  It  is  the  noblest  attribute  of 
the  finite  mind,  it  is  true,  but  it  is  essentially  finite.  It  is 


80  A  FUTURE   LIFE? 

the  outgrowth  of  our  objective  existence.  It  is  our  safest 
g-uide  in  the  walks  of  earthly  life.  It  is  our  faithful  moni- 
tor and  g-uardian  in  our  daily  strugg-le  with  our  physical 
environment.  It  it  is  our  most  reliable  auxiliar}^  in  our 
efforts  to  penetrate  the  secrets  of  Nature,  and  wrest  from 
her  the  means  of  subsistence.  But  its  functions  cease 
with  the  necessities  which  called  it  into  existence  ;  for  it 
will  be  no  longer  useful  when  the  physical  form  has  per- 
ished, and  the  veil  is  lifted  which  hides  from  mortal  eyes 
that  world  where  all  truth  is  revealed.  Then  it  is  that 
the  soul — the  subjective  mind — will  perform  its  normal 
functions,  untrammelled  by  the  physical  form  which  im- 
prisons it  and  binds  it  to  earth,  and  in  its  native  realm 
of  truth,  unimpeded  by  the  laborious  processes  of  finite 
reasoning",  it  will  imbibe  the  truth  from  its  Eternal 
Source."— pp.  73-4. 

The  above  extracts  cover  comprehensiv^ely  the  g-eneral 
principles  of  Dr.  Hudson's  ing-enious  theories.  Some  sub- 
sidiary principles  of  his  hypotheses  will  be  g-iven  expres- 
sion in  other  sections  of  this  chapter.  I  will  now  pro- 
ceed to  examine  the  chief  propositions  of  these  hypotheses 
singfly  as  to  their  basis  in  fact  and  reason. 

Dr.  Hudson's  Hypotheses  Critically  Elxamined. 

§  50. — HAS    MAN   TWO   MINDS  ? 

At  the  very  foundation  of  his  hypothesis  of  a  future 
life,  which  the  Doctor  assumes  in  the  title  of  one  of  his 
works  to  be  "  a  scientific  demonstration,"  is  an  equivocal 
statement  which  much  weakens  his  superstructure,  and 
in  discussing-  his  fundamental  propositions  serially  I  will 
number  this — 

1.  Man  has  or  appears  to  have  two  minds,  the  Object- 
ive and  the  Subjective, 

In  science,  that  which  is  and  that  which  appears  to  be 


HUDSON'S  HYPOTHESES  CRITICISED,        81 

cannot  thus  be  grouped  tog-ether  as  fact.  For  instance,  in 
astronom)%  where  would  be  our  Copernican  system  if  its 
founder  had  predicated  his  basic  proposition  thus  :  The 
earth  is,  or  appears  to  be,  the  center  of  the  solar  system  ? 
But  instead  he  said  the  earth  ai)pears  to  be^  but  the  sun 
IS  the  the  center  of  the  solar  system.  The  chief  differ- 
ence between  science  and  ordinary  thoug-ht-to-be  knowl- 
edge is,  that  the  latter  accepts  as  truth  that  which  ap- 
pears to  be^  while  the  former  accepts  as  truth  only  that 
which  is.  And  all  scientists  know  that  mere  appearance 
is  extreme!)^  likely  to  be  the  exact  opposite  of  the  truth, 
so  that  in  undertaking  a  new  investigation  they  look  be- 
yond superficial  appearances  by  the  eye  of  reason^  expect- 
ing to  find  reality  very  different  from  or  the  reverse  of  the 
superficially  apparent.  So  I  will  say  of  this  first  propo- 
sition of  Dr.  Hudson's,  that  the  fact  that  man  appears  to 
have  two  minds  is  against  rather  than  in  favor  of  the 
truth  of  the  dual  theory,  unsupported  by  positive  facts. 

§51. — ANOTHER    SANDY   FOUNDATION. 

Another  proposition,  placed  by  the  Doctor  as  a  founda- 
tion of  his  "correct  reasoning"  on  this  matter,  is  also 
very  far  from  sound.     It  is  this: 

2.  For  reasoning  purposes,  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference 
whether  we  consider  there  are  two  distinct  minds,  or  one 
mind  having  different  attributes  and  powers  under  differ- 
ent conditions. 

In  view  of  the  propositions  Dr.  Hudson  tried  to  estab- 
lish chiefly  by  the  assumption  that  man  has  two  minds, 
it  seems  absurd  "that  for  reasoning  purposes,  it  is  a  mat- 
ter of  indifference"  if  he  really  has  but  one  mind  ! — that 
for  reasoning  purposes  we  have  the  right  to  assume  the 
truth  of  a  false  premise  if  it  suits  our  purpose  !     Science 


82  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

collects  facts  and  arrives  at  principles  by  comparison  and 
gfeneralization;  but  in  this  case  a  principle  is  first  assumed 
to  be  true  and  then  certain  other  things  are  assumed  to 
be  facts  because  they  support  the  assumed  principle — a 
kind  ot  sophistry  aptly  called  "reasoning-  in  a  circle." 

Tvet  it  be  remembered  that  the  Doctor's  conclusion  is, 
that  one  mind  becomes  extinct  at  the  death  of  the  body, 
and  that  the  other  does  not,  and  we  see  plainly  the  ab- 
surdity of  this  proposition. 

§52.— MAN   HAS   TWO   MINDS,  IS  "ASSUMED." 

3.  *' Under  the  rules  of  correct  reasoning,"  the  Doctor 
claims  the  "right  to  assume  that  man  has  two  minds." 

If  the  rules  of  correct  reasoning  confer  upon  Dr.  Hud- 
son the  "right  to  assume"  that  man  has  two  minds,  they 
must  also  confer  on  his  opponents  the  "right  to  assume" 
that  man  has  but  one  mind,  which  "possesses  certain  at- 
tributes and  powers  under  some  conditions,  and  certain 
other  attributes  and  powers  under  other  conditions,"  as 
"everything  happens  just  as  though  he  were  endowed 
with"  one  complex  "mental  organization." 

For  the  sake  of  demonstrating  what  the  exercise  of 
this  "right  to  assume  "  can  do  to  Dr.  Hudson's  "scien- 
tific demonstration  of  the  future  life,"  I  will  accept  the 
one-mind  hypothesis  for.  the  time  being,  and  follow  his 
reasoning,  and  even,  to  some  extent,  use  his  words  and 
phrases.  "  For  convenience,  I  will  designate  the"  mind 
action  of  the  cerebral  portion  of  the  sensory  nervous  sys- 
tem "as  the  objective  mind,  and  the"  mind  action  of  the 
spinal  and  ganglionic  portions  of  the  nervous  system  "as 
the  subjective  mind,"  or  reflex  and  hereditary  mentation. 
The  objective  mind  by  the  reciprocitity  of  its  component 
elements,  results  in  that  unitization  of  mental  action  we 


HUDSON  ^S  HYPOTHESES  CRITICISED.        83 

call  consciousness^  so  that  we  may  call  objective  thought 
conscious  mentation,  and  subjective  mentation  we  may 
call  subconscious  thoug^ht.  As  simple  illustrations  of  the 
difference  between  these  two  kinds  of  mental  action  I 
will  cite  these  cases  : 

The  infant,  a  few  moments  after  birth  will  take  the 
nipple  into  its  mouth  and  immediately  perform  the  act 
of  sucking  as  perfectly  as  it  can  ever  do  in  after  life;  and 
it  will  within  a  few  hours  grasp  with  its  hands  a  slender 
stick  and  support  its  own  weig"ht,  hanging^  like  a  monkey 
from  the  limb  of  a  tree.  These  are  reflex  acts  from  in- 
herited, subconscious  mentation,  the  **  subjective  mind," 
the  * 'immortal  soul,"  according"  to  Dr.  Hudson.  An  adult 
will  take  the  infant's  fing-er  between  his  teeth  and  press 
upon  it  gently,  but  restraining-  himself  from  actually 
biting-  it ;  and  he  will  wash  the  child's  body  though  it 
screams  with  terror.  These  are  acts  resulting-  from  cere- 
bral mentation,  conscious  thought,  the  ''objective  mind," 
"a  mere  function  of  the  brain,"  says  Hudson. 

I  have  said  that  the  subjective  mind  is  of  the  spinal  cord 
and  sympathetic-nervous  system,  and  Dr.  Hudson  in  his 
work,  A  Scientific  Demonstration  of  the  Future  Life^  de- 
votes much  space  and  strong  evidence  to  prove  this  prop- 
osition, and  I  accept  it  as  a  solid  basis  of  proof  that  the 
subjective  mind  is  a  subjective,  reflex  and  subconscious 
action  of  the  same  g-eneral  function  of  the  cerebro-spinal 
and  gang-lionic  sensory-nervous  systems,  of  which  the 
objective  mind  is  the  conscious  counterpart,  and  hence 
that  if  the  one  is  destined  to  extinction  at  the  death  of 
the  body,  or  to  a  future  life,  the  other  is  also. 

I  will  continue  to  follow  up  the  series  of  propositions 
embraced  in  |the  quotations  I  have  made  in  §  49,  and  in 
commenting  on  them  will  continue  the  assumption  that 


84  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

the  mind  is  not  dual,  but  one  general  function  of  a  com- 
plex nervous  system. 

§53. — "finite"  MIND    CONTROLS   THE    INFINITE  ''SOUI.!" 

4.  The  subjective  mind  is  constantly  amenable  to  con- 
trol by  sugfe^estion  from  the  objective  mind  either  of  the 
same  or  another  person. 

In  §  49  I  have  quoted  Hudson  as  saying-  that  reason,  the 
"noblest  attribute  of  finite  mind  [the  objective  mind]  is 
essentially  finite  ;"  this  being  said  in  "  proof"  that  it  is 
destined  to  extinction  at  death,  I  am  justifiable,  I  think, 
in  inferring  that  he  considers  the  subjective  mind  to  be 
"infinite"  as  an  essential  condition  of  its  immortality. 
If  this  inference  is  correct,  and  it  be  taken  in  conjuction 
with  this  4th  proposition,  Dr.  Hudson  is  placed  in  the 
absurd  position  of  advocating  the  truth  of  the  preposter- 
ous paradox  that  the  infinite  soul  of  man  "is  constantly 
amenable  to  control  by  suggestion  from  the  [finite] 
objective  mind"  ! — the  infinite  subject  to  the  finite  ! 

§54. — THE  "infinite"  has   LIMITATIONS  ! 

5.  "The  subjective  mind  is  incapable  of  inductive  rea- 
soning." 

Another  absurd  paradox  into  which  Dr.  Hudson's  hy- 
potheses led  him  is,  that  the  "infinite"  soul  has  limita- 
tions— "is  incapable  of  inductive  reasoning."  That  is, 
that  that  which  is  limitless  has  limitations — the  infinite 
is  finite  ;  that  the  finite  objective  mind  of  man  can  rea- 
son inductively  and  so  is  capable  of  outdoing  the  infinite 
subjective  mind  of  man,  his  immortal  soul  ! 

Andhe  was  forced  by  his  hypotheses  to  another  absurd 
conclusion,  viz:  "  That  this  apparent  limitation  of  intel- 
lectual power  is,  in  reality,  a  god-like  attribute  of  mind. 


HUDSON'S  HYPOTHESES  CRITICISED.        85 

God  himself  cannot  reason  inductively." — Law  of  Psychic 
Phenomena^  p.  73  ;  see  also  Sci\  Dem,  of  the  Ftiticre  Life, 
Infinity  is  one  of  the  most  essential  attributes  of  **  God," 
according"  to  Christian  theolog-y,  and  Dr.  Hudson  strong"ly 
endorsed  Christianity  and  the  teaching's  and  practices  of 
(the  supposed)  Jesus.  Man,  then,  has  been  endowed  by 
his  Creator  with  an  objective  mind,  something-  he  him- 
self did  not  possess,  thus  contradicting*  the  truism  that 
*'  nothing  can  come  from  nothing","  and  the  * 'divine  reve- 
lation" that  **God  made  man  in  his  own  imag"e."  And 
that  finite  mind  with  which  the  subjective  mind  of  God 
endowed  man  is  superior  to  the  infinite  God  himself  in 
that  it  can  reason  inductively,  while  he  cannot !  Thus 
we  see  what  absurd  conclusions  one  may  be  led  down 
to  by  "assuming""  *' indifferent"  premises,  even  "under 
the  rules  of  correct  reasoning"."  I  would  suggest  that  the 
first  rule  of  correct  reasoning  demands  that  the  premises 
be  absolutely  true, 

§55.— IS   THE   SUBJECTIVE   MIND    A   DISTINCT  ENTITY? 

In  order  that  he  should  have  anj^  ground  at  all  upon 
which  to  construct  an  arg"umeut  in  favor  of  his  theory 
that  the  subjective  mind  of  man  is  his  soul  and  destined  to 
a  future  life,  Dr.  Hudson  was  compelled  to  assume  that — 

6.  The  subjective  mind  is  an  entity  separate  and  dis- 
tinct from  the  objective  mind  and  the  body. 

Dr.  Hudson  expressly  states  in  his  several  books  that 
the  objective  mind  is  the  "  mere  function  of  the  physical 
brain  "  and  is  extinguished  with  the  death  of  the  body. 
But,  if  we  admit  the  two  minds  are  not  simply  two  modes 
of  action  of  one  mind,  we  must  admit  that  the  two  are 
very  closely  related  to  each  other — twin  sisters,  or  the 
bass  and  the  soprano  of  the  songlof  life,  as  it  were — simi- 


86  A  FUTURE   LIFE? 

lar  in  essence  and  action,  or  it  is  unscientific  and  even 
a  violation  of  common  sense  to  classify  them  togfether 
under  the  term  fnind. 

If  one  mind  is  essentially  a  mere  function  (action)  of 
org"anized  matter,  it  would  surely  be  a  far  call  to  say  an- 
other mind  was  not  the  "  mere  function"  of  another  lit- 
tle-differing- organization  of  similar  matter,  but  that  it 
'*  is  an  entity  separate  and  distinct  from  "  the  other  mind 
or  any  organization  of  any  kind  of  matter.  A  "distinct 
entity  "  capable  of  thought,  "perfect  memory,"  etc.,  as 
"assumed"  by  the  Doctor,  is  ^  personal  being ^  in  no  way 
to  be  classed  with  a  "  mere  function  "  of  any  one  organ. 
He  admits  that  this  distinct  entity  "acts  through"  the 
organism  known  as  the  spinal  cord  and  its  nerve-connec- 
tions with  other  organs,  but  does  not  admit  that  the  sub- 
jective mind  is  the  "  mere  function  "  of  the  cord  and  the 
nerves,  though  it  is  a  kind  of  "  mind  "  and  that  cord  and 
nerves  a  kind  of  brain — in  fact  a  prolongation  of  the  cra- 
nial brain.  They  are  not  distinct  and  independent  organs 
but  one  continuous  nervous  organization,  similar  in  ma- 
terials, tissues,  and  all  their  physical  properties.  Why 
does  he  make  this  extremely  broad  distinction  between 
the  "two  minds"  as  to  their  essential  nature,  and  be- 
tween the  functions  of  the  two  chief  parts  of  the  general 
nervous  system  ?  Because  all,  or  even  any,  of  the  facts  of 
biology — of  anatomy,  physiology  and  pS3xhology — lead 
him  by  induction  to  it  ?  Not  at  all.  He  assumed  that 
the  subjective  mind  of  man  is  his  immortal  soul,  and  from 
this  assumption  deductively  concluded  that  it  is  a  "dis- 
tinct entity"  capable  of  existence  independent  of  the  ob- 
jective mind  and  the  material  body.  This  conclusion  was 
necessary  to  his  theory  of  a  future  life,  but  it  is  plainly  a 
deduction  from  false  premises,  and  so  is  itself  false. 


HUDSON'S  HYPOTHESES  CRITICISED.        87 

I  am  surprised  that  such  a  clear  thinker  and  unusually 
logical  reasoner  should  fall  into  this  error,  and  the  more 
so  because  of  his  excellent  remarks  upon  the  nature  and 
use  of  the  working"  hypothesis  and  on  induction  and  de- 
duction, and  warning"  against  the  danger  of  falling  into 
error  by  reasoning  from  false  premises,  with  which  he 
prefaces  his  hypotheses  as  set  forth  in  his  works. 

§56. — eureka!    **it  is  the  soul"! 

7.  The  subjective  mind  is  capable  of  sustaining  exist- 
ence independent  of  the  body — '*  //  is  the  souiy 

Let  me  show  you  the  earthly  '*  home  of  the  soul."  See 
this  snake  :  dissect  it.  Open  the  skull,  and  you  find  but 
a  rudiment  of  a  brain — that  organ  of  which  the  objective 
mind,  "whose  noblest  attribute  is  reason,"  is '*  but  the 
mere  function" — the  finite,  mortal  mind.  See  that  long 
back-bone,  extending  as  a  series  of  hollow,  jointed  sec- 
tions the  entire  length  of  the  snake's  bod3\  In  that  prone 
tube  is  housed  the  spinal  cord,  the  principal  organ  of  the 
subjective  mind — a  large  and  powerful  nerve.  It  is  the 
home  of  the  soiiU  according  to  Dr.  Hudson  !  See  this  man. 
Behold  his  capacious  skull,  a  great  dome  over  the  temple 
of  human  life,  the  body — the  crowning  glory  of  evolu- 
tion is  contained  by  it — the  massive,  convoluted  cerebrum 
of  a  man.  But,  alas!  it  is  only  the  organ  of  which  the 
objective,  reasoning,  progressive  mind,  is  the  "mere  func- 
tion" !  and  when  that  magnificent  organization,  the  brain 
of  a  noble  man,  dies,  the  finite  mind  is  extinguished.  See 
that  curved,  serpent-like  column  of  bones  which  forms 
the  central  support  of  all  the  animal  organs,  but  which 
is  crowned  by  the  great  dome,  the  skull,  with  its  wonder- 
ful contents.     In  that  more  primitive  bony  tube,  lies  the 


88  A  FUTURE   LIFE? 

spinal  cord,  twin  brother  to  that  of  the  snake,  and  home 
of  the  soul  on  earth  !  according:  to  Dr.  Hudson. 

Does  not  the  very  relative  positions  of  these  two  g-reat 
nerve-centers  appeal  to  you  in  the  name  of  consistency  and 
orderly  arrangement,  of  symmetry  and  order  of  evolution, 
appeal  to  your  common  sense  and  sense  of  *'the  eternal 
fitness  of  thing's,"  to  reject  this  theory  of  a  human  soul 
so  primitive  in  the  scale  of  development,  so  subordinate 
in  its  domicile  and  relationship  to  the  objective  mind, 
* 'finite  and  mortal,"  so  unconscious  and  subjective? 

§  57. — A    FATAL   ADMISSION. 

Dr.  Hudson  says  the  objective  mind  cannot  be  the  soul, 
which  he  ingenuousl}^  holds  by  preconception  is  destined 
to  a  future  life,  because — 

8.  The  objective  mind  is  merely  the  function  of  the 
physical  brain,  and  reason,  its  "noblest  attribute,"  is  of 
the  earth  and  essentially  finite  and  mortal. 

Having-  commented  in  the  foregoing  sections  on  most 
of  the  subject-matter  of  this  8th  proposition  of  the  Doc- 
tor's series  of  hypothetical  assumptions,  I  will  here  only 
comment  briefly  on  the  assertion  that  humam  reason  "is 
of  the  earth  earthy"  (Z.  ofPsy,  Ph.  p.  73),  and  for  that 
reason  is  not  destined  to  a  future  life.     Hudson  says  : 

"But  its  [the  objective  mind's]  functions  cease  with 
the  necessities  which  called  it  into  existence  ;  for  it  will 
be  no  longer  usefurwhen  the  physical  form  has  perished, 
and  the  veil  is  lifted  which  hides  from  mortal  eyes  that 
world  where  all  truth  is  revealed." — Ibidem^  p.  73. 

That  may  be  poetry — it  is  certainly  not  science.  How 
did  Dr.  Hudson  know  that  "the  necessities  which  called 
it  into  existence"  cease  at  the  death  of  the  body — grant- 
ing for  the  time  that  there  is  to  be  a  future  life  ?    What 


HUDSON'S  HYPOTHESES  CRITICISED.        89 

did  he  know  of  the  conditions  behind  that  mystic  **veil 
which  hides  from  mortal  eyes  that  world  "  ?  How  did  he 
'know  that  **  all  truth  is  revealed  "  in  **that  world  "  ?  He 
was  a  non-believer  in  the  ability  of  '* spirits" — disem- 
bodied "subjective  minds,"  if  you  please — to  communi- 
cate with  mortals;  he  could  have  no  description  of  the 
necessities  of  that  country  from  actual  residents  of  it. 
Did  he  know  that  the  soul  does  not  at  death  fly  away  to 
some  other  planet  and  there  "  be  born  again  "  into  a  fu- 
ture life  where  the  "necessities"  differ  little  from  those 
of  this  life  ?  And  how  did  he  know  that  "the  necessities 
which  called"  the  subjective  mind  "into  existence  "do  not 
cease  at  death  of  the  body,  and  with  them  its  functions? 
Know  ?  I  do  not  think  the  good  Doctor  even  pretended 
to  know:  he  only  "  assumed"  that  conditions  were  thus 
and  so  "over  there,"  because  his  theory  depended  upon  it. 
I  do  not  here  advocate  the  theory  that  the  objective  mind, 
or  the  one  complex  mind,  is  the  "  soul  "  and  destined  to  an 
after-death  existence,  but  I  conceive  that  Hudson  made 
here  an  assertion  that,  if  true,  is  fatal  to  his  own  theory. 
It  is  this :  If  the  objective  mind  perishes  with  the  neces- 
sities which  called  it  forth,  at  the  death  of  the  body, 
we  are  justified  in  predicating"  the  same  of  the  subjective 
mind,  as  it  can  be  shown  by  facts  that  the  necessities 
of  the  subjective  mind  are  also  "  of  the  earth  earthy," 
and  that  there  is  no  more  evidence  that  those  necessi- 
ties continue  over  into  a  future  life  than  there  is  that 
those  of  the  objective  mind  do  so. 

§58 — SUBJECTIVE   MIND    "  OF  THE    EARTH   EARTHY." 

To  sustain  this  proposition  I  will  produce  the  confession 
and  testimony  of  Thomson  Jay  Hudson,  Ph.  D.,  IX.  D., 
himself.     I  quote  from  A  Scientijic  Demonstration  of  the 


90  A  FUTURE  LIFK  ? 

Future  Life,  p.  262  (see  also  p.  133  of  the  L,  o/  Ps.  Ph,)  : 

9.   "So  far  as  this  life  is  concerned,  the  subjective  mind 
has,  primarily,  but  three  functions,  namely  :  1.  Self-pre-* 
servation  ;  2.  Reproduction  ;  3.  Preservation  of  the  off- 
spring".    These  may  be  reduced  in  terms  to  one,  namely: 
The  perpetuation  of  the  race  or  species." 

These  functions  are  those  common  to  animal  and  man, 
and  even  largely  to  the  plant,  and  pertain  to  the  present 
life  on  earth,  and  so  are  **  of  the  earth  earthy."  Hudson 
emphasizes  this  confession  by  adding:  "The  only  normal 
functions  performed  by  the  subjective  mind  during"  its 
sojourn  in  the  body,  and  its  connection  with  it,  all  per- 
tain to  the  perpetuation  of  the  species." 

Note  well  that  he  italicized  the  word  ^^  norrnaiy  He 
did  so  because  the  functions  he  ascribes  to  the  subjective 
mind  as  pertaining  to  a  future  life  are  such  as  are  mani- 
fested in  psychic  phenomena,  as  clairvoyance,  telepathy, 
intuition,  etc.,  which  he  voluntarily  acknowledg-es  are 
abnormal  1  Think  of  it:  The  normal  functioning  of  the 
bodily  organs  is  health,  tending  to  life  ;  their  abnormal 
functioning  is  disease,  tending  to  death  of  the  organ  or 
the  entire  body.  Is  not  the  normal  functioning  of  the 
mind  mental  health — sanit}^ — tending  to  mental  life,  and 
the  abnormal  functioning  of  mind  mental  disease,  insani- 
ty, tending  to  mental  extinction  ?  Common  sense  as  well 
as  science  answers  emphatically.  Yes. 

What  a  prospect  of  a  future  life  is  this  !  An  eternal 
existence  in  a  colony  of  maniacs — a  subjective  mind  wan- 
dering hither  and  thither  on  the  choppy  waves  of  the 
boundless  ocean  of  eternal  subjectivity,  a  wrecked  ship 
that  has  lost  her  compass,  her  charts  and  her  rudder ! 
For  Hudson  explains  that  the  subjective  mind  in  this  life 


HUDSON'S  HYPOTHESES  CRITICISED,        91 

manifests  the  phenomena  of  insanity  when  uncontrolled 
by  the  objective  mind,  and  warns  his  readers  ag"ainst  in- 
dulging in  certain  practices  of  psychism  which  weaken 
the  beneficent  guardianship  of  the  objective  mind.  If  its 
association  with  and  subjection  to  the  control  and  guid- 
ance of  the  objective  mind  is  necessary  to  the  normal 
functioning  of  the  '*sour'  in  this  life,  may  that  not  be 
one  of  "  the  necessities  which  called  the  objective  mind 
into  existence  "  ?  And  may  that  necessity  not  continue 
after  death  if  this  subjective  soul  is  destined  to  a  future 
life,  and  so  secure  for  it,  also,  a  future  existence  ?  And, 
should  this  faithful  monitor  of  the  soul  '* cease  to  exist 
with  the  death  of  the  bod}^"  what  assurance  have  we  that 
we  shall  not  be  forever  in  the  sad  predicament  of  the  in- 
dulgent "  psychic"  who  in  this  life  has  thrown  overboard 
the  compass,  charts  and  pilot  of  his  subjective  mind  ? 

I  quote  further  from  the  same  page,  an  ominous  sen- 
tence which  the  Doctor  re-inforces  by  printing  in  italics: 

."//  [the  subjective  raind=the  soul]  can  never -perform 
any  other  function  [than  that  stated  abf)ve  in  Proposition 
9],  or  exercise  any  other  of  its  manifold  powers  [in  this 
life] ,  except  under  the  most  intensely  abnormal  conditions'*''? 

If  so,  what  assurance  have  we  that  it  will  not  in  its  fu- 
ture life  be  just  as  subject  to  **  the  most  intensely  abnor- 
mal conditions  "  ?  On  page  305,  same  work,  the  Doctor 
says  that  '*any  employment  which  unduly  develops  the 
subjective  powers  in  anj^  direction  whatever,  is  attended 
by  abnormal  physical  and  mental  conditions."  If  true, 
and  I  think  it  is,  what  can  we  expect  to  result  from  an  ex- 
clusive development  of  the  subjective  mind  (soul)  in  the 
future  life  but  terribly  abnormal  mental  conditions  ? 

To  renounce  the  orthodox  future  life  in  hell  for  Hud- 


92  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

son's  future  life  of  the  subjective  mind  seems  to  me  to  be 
only  "jumping-  from  the  fire  into  the  frying  pan" ! 

§  59. — A    FINAL   POETICAL   ASSUMPTION. 

On  page  74  of  The  Law  of  Psychic  Phenomena^  Doctor 
Hudson  closes  a  chapter  of  the  book  by  throwing  science 
to  the  winds,  cutting  loose  from  control  of  his  objective 
reason  and  allowing  his  subjective  mind  to  indite  a  base- 
less re  very  as  follows : 

10.  *'. .  .  .Then  it  is  that  the  soul — the  subjective  mind 
— will  perform  its  normal  functions,  untrammelled  by  the 
physical  form  which  imprisons  it  and  binds  it  to  earth, and 
in  its  native  realm  of  truth,  unimpeded  by  the  laborious 
processes  of  finite  reasoning,  it  will  imbibe  all  truth  from 
its  Eternal  Source." 

How  did  the  Doctor  find  out  that  the  subjective  mind's 
"native  realm"  was  that  of  truth?  If  now  out  of  that 
realm,  why? — did  it  fajl  from  heaven,  "like  Lucifer,  Son 
of  the  Morning"?  How  comes  it  that  this  infinite  soul 
can  be  trammelled,  imprisoned  and  bound  to  earth  by 
the  finite  physical  form  ?  What  is  to  be  gained  by  a  fu- 
ture life  in  which  we  shall  be  "  unimpeded  by  the  labori- 
ous processes  of  finite  reasoning"?  How  did  he  know 
that  we  shall  "  imbibe  all  truth  from  its  Infinite  Source"? 
Is  not  this  the  same  old  dream  of  a  heaven  of  indolence 
and  vagrancy — a  veritable  Nirvana  ? 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

330ES    SPIRITUALISM    DEMONSTRATE 
A  FUTURE    LIFE? 

§  60. — ESSENTIAL  QUALIFICATIOT^S   OE   A   CRITIC. 

QUESTIONS  of  scientific  and  moral  importance 
should  never  be  flippantl)^  discussed,  extinguished 
by  ridicule,  '* settled"  by  dog-matism,  rejected  on  dicta  of 
incompetent  or  unqualified  opponents,  or  even  criticised 
by  those  who  have  not  given  them  unprejudiced,  earnest, 
conscientious  and  thorough  examination  from  every  pos- 
sible standpoint.  Spiritualism  has  been  both  accepted 
and  rejected  by  thousands  of  people  who  were  without 
anything  like  adequate  natural  and  acquired  qualifica- 
tions for  such  an  investigation.  And  such  people  are 
very  often  exceedingly  zealous  and  active  in,  on  the  one 
hand,  advocating  Spiritualism,  and  on  the  other,  oppos- 
ing it.  The  folly  and  evil  of  this,  in  either  case,  is  very 
evident  in  view  of  the  fact  that  some  able  and  learned 
scientists  who  have  extensively  investigated  the  phe- 
nomena have  arrived  at  conclusions  both  for  and  against 
the  Spiritualistic  theory. 

Before  I  proceed  to  discuss  the  Spiritualistic  theory,  I 
will  briefly  state  the  grounds  upon  which  I  myself  claim 
some  degree  of  essential  qualification  for  doing  so. 

Leaving"  others  entirely  to  their  own  inferences  as  to 
my  natural  ability  for  such  work,  I  will  speak  only  of  mj 

(93) 


94  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

opportunities,  experiences  and  investigfations.  But  the 
reader  is  urg'ently  requested  to  keep  clearly  in  mind  that 
the  object  of  this  treatment  of  the  question  of  a  Future 
Life  is  not  to  directly  prove  or  to  disprove  the  truth  of 
the  doctrine,  but  to  critically  examine  the  g-rounds  upon 
which  it  is  based  ;  hence  the  interrogation  mark,  ?,  in 
my  heading-,  *'A  Future  Life?" — indicating  an  ''open 
question" — a  question  science  may  sometime  or  never  ad- 
equately and  satisfactorily  answer. 

§  61.  —  SOME  *' credentials"  OF   THE   WRITER. 

This  is  quite  personal,  but  I  hope  to  be  candid.  Being" 
from  childhood  a  most  inquisitive  student  of  nature,  and 
especially  of  the  mind,  I  early  and  eagerly  g-rasped  every- 
thing which  seemed  to  offer  me  assistance  in  solving  my 
questions,  especially  in  relation  to  mind,  and  I  remember 
of  being-  interested  in  phrenology  when  I  was  not  more 
than  six  years  old — introduced  to  me  by  my  uncle  using- 
my  head  as  a  "phrenological  bust"  in  illustrating  his  fire- 
side lectures  on  the  subject !  This  emphasized  my  taste 
for  the  study  of  mind,  and  in  after  years  I  read  exten- 
sively the  publications  of  Fowler  &  Wells,  of  New  York. 

I  first  had  my  attention  drawn  to  the  phenomena  of 
Spiritualism  in  1853,  when  I  was  but  ten  years  of  age  ; 
but,  of  course,  made  no  serious  attempt  at  investigation 
until  several  years  later.  In  '60-1  I  read  one  or  two  books 
on  mesmerism,  which  interested  me  much.  Soon  after, 
while  at  home  from  the  war  convalescing-  from  some  of 
the  dire  results  of  war's  strenuosity,  in  1863,  I  obtained 
Abercromhie' s  Intellectual  Philosophy^  and  studied  it  as  as- 
siduously as  a  love-sick  maiden  would  devour  the  "latest" 
novel.  There  I  found  the  first  discussion  of  "psychic 
phenomena"  by  a  man  of  ability  and  education  that  I 


IS  SPIRITUALISM  A  DEMONSTRATION  ?     95 

ever  read,  and  the  impression  it  made  upon  me  was  deep 
and  lasting- — even  yet  I  discern  it,  though  half  a  century 
has  passed  since  I  read  the  work. 

§  62. — SOME  ** psychic"  experiences. 

Before  I  had  ever  heard  of  '*psychic  phenomena  "  some 
strange  experiences  came  to  me,  and  I  will  briefly  relate 
three  or  four  of  them  here  because  they  formed  a  very 
important  clue  to  m\"  discovery,  several  j^ears  later,  of  a 
rational  explanation  of  certain  features  of  Spiritualistic 
phenomena.  But  at  the  time,  I  had  given  Spiritualism  no 
serious  attention,  and  did  not  attribute  what  happened  to 
me  to  the  intervention  of  **  spirits." 

I  have  since  read  and  studied  much  upon  hallucination, 
but  these  experiences  differ  from  true  hallucination  in 
that  they  corresponded  to,  and  seem  to  have  been  correla- 
ted with,  reality — fact — ,  while  hallucination  is  a  subjec- 
tive perception  not  correlated  with  a  corresponding  objec- 
tive reality.  Note  this  distinction  as  I  relate  the  following- 
incidents,  which,  however,  cannot  be  justly  explained  as 
**mere  co-incidences,"  because  of  their  reg"ularity  and  ex- 
ceptionless concurrence. 

1.  When  I  was  about  twelve  years  of  ag-e,  one  summer 
day  I  was  playing  in  front  of  our  house  very  quietly  and 
alone.  Suddenly  I  heard  whispered,  apparently  within 
my  left  ear,  the  name  **Andy  Buckalew."  I  then  had  an 
uncle  of  that  name  living,  as  I  supposed,  about  150  miles 
away.  The  whisper  did  not  seem  to  come  from  someone 
at  my  side — it  was  so  entirely  within  the  ear,  and  yet  it 
was  quite  loud  and  slowh^  pronounced  as  one  whispers  to 
another  some  distance  away.  I  was  startled,  and  looked 
in  every  direction  for  the  speaker,  but  at  first  saw  no  one. 
But  looking-  farther  awa3%  I  saw  two  men   approaching- 


96  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

the  house  ;  one  of  them  proved  to  be  my  uncle  Andrew, 
who  had  come  unexpectedly. 

2.  Not  long-  after  this  occurrence,  another  very  simi- 
lar one  happened.  I  was  ag-ain  sitting-  on  the  g-round 
quietly  playing  and  alone.  In  my  ear,  exactly  as  before, 
came  a  loud,  slowly-pronounced  whisper  of  the  name  of 
a  friend  who  then  lived  eight  miles  away,  but  had  just 
moved  to  that  place  from  the  neighborhood,  150  miles  dis- 
tant, where  I  had  formerly  known  both  him  and  Uncle 
Andrew.  He  was  Richard  Moore,  and  the  name  I  heard 
was  *'Rich  Moore,"  a  name  by  which  his  neighbors  always 
designated  him.  Startled  again  by  a  whisper  when  no 
one  was  near  me,  I  looked  up  and  saw  my  old  friend  at 
the  g"ate,  some  twenty  feet  from  me,  and  he  also  had  come 
unexpected  by  any  of  our  family. 

3.  Several  years  later,  when  I  was  about  twenty  years 
of  age,  one  morning  while  at  breakfast  someone  knocked 
at  the  door,  and  at  the  same  instant  came  to  me  a  whis- 
per so  low  that  I  can  scarcel)^  decide  whether  it  was  such 
or  an  exceedingly  vivid  intruding  impression — one  not 
correlated  with  my  train  of  thought  at  the  time.  The 
name  was  **  Uriah  Reed,"  and  when  the  door  was  opened 
a  former  schoolmate  and  playfellow  of  that  name  came 
in.  He  lived  about  twenty-four  miles  away,  I  had  not 
seen  or  heard  from  him  for  some  time  and  his  visit  was 
entirely  unexpected. 

4.  Soon  after  this,  I  moved  to  a  place  about  fifty  miles 
farther  away  from  my  friend's  home,  and  about  a  year 
afterward  he  came  again  and  called  upon  me  entirely  un- 
expected, and  his  presence  at  my  door  was  announced  al- 
most exactly  as  before. 

There  are  three  peculiar  features  of  these  phenomena: 
In  each  case  the  name  only  was  heard  or  '* impressed" 


IS  SPIRITUALISM  A  DEMONSTRATION  ?      97 

directly  upon  my  mind  without  sound,  objective  or  subjec- 
tive ;  what  was  a  loud  whisper,  apparently,  when  I  was  a 
child  seemingfly  deiJ^enerated  to  an  ** impression''  when  I 
had  g-rown  up  to  manhood,  and  grradually  almost,  but  not 
entirely^  ceased  to  occur  as  I  g^rew  older;  and  these  whis- 
pered or  intruded  impressions  making-  such  announcments 
never  occurred  without  being-  succeeded  immediately  by 
the  objective  reality,  as  in  the  above  incidents. 

In  speaking  of  these  **  whispers,"  I  wish  to  be  under- 
stood that  though  I  seemed  to  hear  just  as  I  hear  real  ob- 
jective whispered  words,  and  could  not  at  the  time  con- 
ceive of  their  being-  anything-  else,  I  know  now,  after  a 
gfreat  deal  of  study  and  investigation  of  psych olog"ical 
facts  and  laws,  the  whispers  were  subjective  perceptions 
by  the  mind  ;  that  is,  perception  by  the  hearing-center 
of  the  brain  without  an)^  sound-medium  coming  throug-h 
the  special  orgfans  of  hearing- — probably  somewhat  as  a 
wireless  telegraph  instrument  *'catches  up"*  a  message 
without  the  intervention  of  a  wire;  but  I  do  not  consider 
this  analogy  more  than  crudely  approximate.  The  inci- 
dents here  g-iven  do  not  cover  all  of  my  personal  experi- 
ence of  '*  psychic  phenomena,"  but  are  such  as  are  deemed 
the  more  relevant  to  the  subject  under  discussion. 

§63. — STUDIES   OF    "spiritual   phenomena." 

My  first  direct  experience  with  "spirit  manifestations" 
was  about  the  year  1856  or  '57.  My  brother  and  two  sis- 
ters (younger  than  I)  and  myself,  having-  heard  "table 
tipping"  described,  from  childish  curiosity,  tried  it  our- 
selves, and  succeeded  from  the  first.  By  first  one  and 
then  another  withdrawing  from  the  table,  we  discovered 
that  my  vounger  sister,  aged  about  eig-ht  or  nine,  was  the 
most  "  powerful  medium"  of  the  four.    The  cause  of  the 


98  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

phenomena  and  this  difference  of  mediumistic  power  were 
then  to  me  inexplicable,  but  now  the  explanations  appear 
very  plain  and  simple  to  me,  on  the  principle  of  subcon- 
scious mentation  and  muscular  action  of  the  "  medium," 
and  the  difference  in  contig-uity  of  conscious  and  sub- 
conscious, or  objective  and  subjective,  mentation  between 
one  person  and  another.  Later,  I  shall  discuss  this  basis 
of  explanation  more  fully. 

In  this  discussion  of  Spiritualistic  phenomena,  I  pro- 
pose to  almost  entirely  ig^nore  the  doingfs  of  professional 
mediums  as  irrelevant,  for  or  ag-ainst  the  doctrine,  as  the 
platform  and  cabinet  performance  is  always  either  mere 
leg-erdemain  or  of  uncertain  character,  and  shall  g-ive  at- 
tention almost  exclusively  to  such  phenomena  as  occur 
when  a  few  friends,  or  the  members  of  a  sing-le  family, 
hold  private  seances  for  the  purpose  of  sincere  experimen- 
tation with  the  object  only  of  learning  the  truth.  I  will, 
then,  merely  mention  that  I  have  seen  more  or  less  of  the 
rope-tying"  feats  and  alleged  "materialization,"  etc.,  of 
the  professionals,  as  early  as  1864  and  since. 

In  1868  my  wife  and  I  were  one  day  standing"  by  a  table 
around  which  a  party  of  neig-hbors  were  seated  and  trying" 
to  g"et  a  planchette  to  write.  They  were  not  succeeding, 
and  someone  suggested  that  Mrs.  Davis  try.  She  did  not 
take  a  seat  in  the  circle,  but,  standing  behind  one  of  the 
sitters  where  she  could  only  reach  the  instrument  conve- 
niently with  her  left  hand,  she  placed  that  hand  upon  it, 
and  in  a  few  moments  irregular  movements  began.  After 
some  minutes'  trial,  the  movements  becominj^f  less  con- 
vulsive, writing  was  produced,  but  only  brief  answers  to 
questions  and  of  no  importance.  That  was  the  beg"inning" 
of  a  quite  thorough  investigation  on  my  part  during"  the 
succeeding-  three  years,  for  the  most  part  at  home  with 


IS  SPIRITUALISM  A  DEMONSTRATION  ?     99 

only  Mrs.  Davis,  our  infant  son  and  myself  in  the  house. 
Occasionally  others,  Spiritualists  or  inquirers,  were  pres- 
ent ;  sometimes  the  seances  were  at  the  homes  of  neig-h- 
bors;  but  there  was  never  anything"  done  in  the  nature  of 
a  public  exhibition,  and  no  money  was  ever  accepted. 

"We  had  been  married  nearly  four  years  previously,  and 
I  knew  my  wife  would  not  intentionall}^  deceiv^e  me  in 
such  a  serious  matter.  She  was  about  twenty-four  years 
of  ag-e,  in  g-ood  health,  and  of  a  cheerful  disposition.  In 
our  experiments  after  the  first,  no  planchette  was  used. 
We  sat  down  by  our  table,  laying"  our  hands  thereon,  and 
quietly  awaited  results. 

When  we  went  home  from  the  above-mentioned  seance, 
we  resolved  to  experiment  on  our  own  account.  At  the 
first  trial,  the  ** medium's"  left  hand  soon  began  to  nrove 
automatically  (reflexively,  I  think.)  and  convulsively, 
but  soon  became  more  orderly.  I  then  placed  a  pencil 
in  her  left  hand  and  suggested  that  the  planchette  was  not 
necessary.  After  some  spasmodic  attempts,  the  hand  be- 
gan to  write,  but  only  commonplace  remarks.  Then  I 
asked,  **  Who  is  doing  this  writing  ?  "  ''  Ida  May,"  was  the 
answer;  and  from  that  on,  the  medium's  personality  when 
**under  control"  was  that  of  Ida  May,  generally,  with 
many  interventions  of  other  personalities,  temporarily. 
The  Ida  May  personality  was  not  a  mere  claim  of  that 
name,  but  my  wife  of  twenty- four  seemed  transformed 
to  a  miss  of  twelve  or  fourteen.  Though  the  left  hand 
for  some  time  did  the  writing,  the  *' influence"  g"raduall3" 
extended  to  the  entire  body,  when  the  facial  expression 
would  be  decidedly  changed — the  cheeks  more  rosy,  eyes 
more  open,  sparkling  and  *' mischievous  "<' as  we  say  of 
vivacious  children);  the  laug-h  decidedly  more  childish; 


100  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

the  motions  were  quicker,  the  voice  more  child-like,  the 
disposition  more  whimsical  and  frivolous.  So  that  the 
appearance  and  action  was  so  decidedly  different  that  it 
seemed  impossible  for  me  to  realize  that  *'Ida  May  "  was 
not  a  personal  individual  temporarily  supplanting:  the 
personality  of  my  wife,  and  it  seemed  perfectly  natural 
and  appropriate  that  I  modify  my  own  manner  and  lan- 
g^uagre  according-ly. 

After  quite  a  number  of  seances  in  which  the  writing* 
was  done  by  the  left  hand,  I  sugrg-ested  that  it  would  be 
better  to  use  the  rig^ht  hand;  then,  after  some  spasmodic 
and  awkward  attempts,  the  change  was  made  ;  the  right 
thereafter  was  always  used  by  Ida,  but  also  hy  all  other 
personalities  who  "controlled,'*  though  the  suggestion 
that  the  right  hand  could  be  used  as  weU  was  given  onlv 
to  Ida  May.  Observing  that  the  facial  expression  was 
greatly  changed  when  the  medium  was  "influenced"  to 
write,  I  later  suggested  to  Ida  Mav  that  she  could  speak 
as  well  as  write.  Immediately  there  were  visible  spas- 
modic movements  of  the  throat  and  mouth,  then  stam- 
mering" and  words  spoken  with  apparent  difficulty.  But 
after  a  little  practice,  the  personality  calling  herself  Ida 
May  conversed  as  fluently  (and  even  more  vivaciously)  as 
did  my  wife's  normal  personality  ;  and  she  g-esticulated, 
smiled,  laughed,  and  varied  the  facial  expression  in  ways 
not  characteristic  of  Mrs.  D.  in  her  normal  condition,  but 
distinctly  so  of  the  Ida  May  personality.  And  these  per- 
sonal characteristics  of  Ida  were  always  as  consistent  and 
exceptionless  as  those  of  any  normal  personality,  so  that 
I  soon  became  so  "  well  acquainted  "  with  her  that  I  rec- 
og'nized  her  as  soon  as  she  began  to  speak,  without  any 
necessity  of  her  announcing*  her  name;  and  this  personal- 
ity was  so  distinctive  and  persistent  that  I  was  compelled 


IS  SPIRITUALISM  A  DEMONSTRATION  ?    101 

to  recognize  her  as  a  ferson — a  brigfht,  sociable,  pleasant 
little-girl  visitor.  And  for  several  months  she  manifested 
this  personality  and  posed  as  a  '* spirit"  witness  while  I 
asked  her  hundreds  of  questions — examined  and  cross- 
examined  her  critically,  but  always  assuming-  that  the 
Ida  Ma3"  personalit}"  was  that  of  a  little  girl  who  died  some 
time  previously,  although  this  was  really  an  open  ques- 
tion with  me  and  the  principal  one  I  was  trying  to  solve. 
This  assumption  seemed  necessary  in  order  to  maintain 
the  continuance  of  the  '* control/'  In  our  experience  we 
found  darkness  unnecessary — quietude  was  favorable. 

Many  other  personalities,  each  consistent  with  itself 
and  distinct  from  the  normal  Mrs.  D.  and  the  other  **con- 
trols,"  appeared  from  time  to  time  after  the  first  few 
weeks  of  experimentation  ;  but  I  give  particulars  of  Ida 
May  because  that  was  the  first,  most  persistent,  decidedly 
typical  and  distinctly  individualized  ;  nevertheless  after 
others  began  to  intrude  this  personality  appeared  less 
and  less  frequently  until  it  ceased  altogether — a  very 
significant  fact. 

§64. — RESULTS   OF   THR   INVESTIGATION. 

First,  I  will  say  that  I  had  always  been  a  believer  in  the 
doctrine  of  immortality  in  the  same  sense  that  most  peo- 
ple are  ;  that  is,  I  had  a  kind  of  vague,  misty  belief,  with 
a  great  desire  to  find  some  evidence  beyond  the  dicta  of 
theologians  and  mystics.  Inheriting  this  belief,  like 
many  others,  I  of  course  was  strongly  predisposed  to  ac- 
cept the  aspects  of  the  phenomena  that  apparently  con- 
firmed, and  to  reject  or  consider  of  doubtful  validit}"  those 
aspects  which  seemed  to  weigh  against  my  belief — a  dis- 
position natural  to  everyone,  and  this  fact  should  be  duly 
considered  as  influencing  my  efforts  to  arrive  at  logical 


102  A  FUTURE   LIFE? 

conclusions,  though  I  tried  to  keep  prejudice  in  restraint 
and  judg"ment  unbiased  as  much  as  possible. 

As  to  the  results  of  my  experiments  and  observ^ations 
in  inv^estig'ating'  the  phenomena  above  described,  I  will 
note  a  few  apparently  incidental  thougfh  very  sug-g-estive 
effects.  1.  No  information  that  could  be  otherwise  sub- 
stantiated was  ever  received  from  the  "spirit"  except 
such  as  was  at  the  time  or  i)reviouslyVx\o^x\  to  the  medi- 
um, myself  or  someone  else  present.  2.  When  a  question 
was  asked  that  would  require  an  answer  that  would  con- 
tradict some  previous  statement  made  by  the  same  "con- 
trol ";  or  one  was  asked  that  the  "spirit"  should  evidently 
be  able  to  answer  but  the  impersonating-  personality  could 
not  answer,  the  "influence  "  ceased  and  the  medium  re- 
turned to  her  normal  condition.  For  instance,  one  per- 
sonality professed  to  be  the  spirit  of  my  uncle  J — ,  who 
lost  his  life  in  the  civil  war.  Q.  Where  were  you  when 
you  died?  Ans.  "  In  front  of  Richmond."  Q.  At  what 
particular  place,  or  in  what  hospital  ?  A  few  spasmodic 
movements  and  the  "spirit  "was  gone.  That  answer 
was  just  what  and  all  that  I  knew  about  where  my  uncle 
died.  At  another  time  I  asked  this  same  "spirit  "  if  he 
knew  where  his  brother  T —  was  then  living.  Ans.  "  In 
Iowa."  Q.  At  what  place — what  is  his  postoffice  address? 
No  answer,  but  confused  motions  of  the  pencil  and  then 
exit  "spirit."  I  had  heard  that  Uncle  T —  had  moved  to 
Iowa,  but  knew  nothing  as  to  what  part  of  the  State. 
These  incidents  are  typical  of  many  others. 

3.  It  was  not  necessary  that  the  medium  (who  was 
always  normally  conscious  during  the  manifestation)  or 
myself,  or  others  present,  be  thinking  of  a  matter,  or  even 
to  remember  it,  in  order  that  a  correct  communication  be 


IS  SPIRITUALISM  A  DEMONSTRATION  ?    103 

received  ;  it  was  sufficient  that  someone  present  knew  the 
facts  or  had knozvn  them  at  some  time,  even  if  unable  then 
to  recollect  them.  This  peculiar  feature  of  the  phenom- 
ena I  expect  to  explain  later  in  this  discussion.  4.  The 
answers  to  que<itions  reeardingr  the  '*  spirit  world"  were 
such  as  closely  co-incided  either  with  our  beliefs  or  the 
theories  of  it  by  others  which  we  had  read  or  heard  ;  no 
really  new  information,  or  an}^  that  was  not  apparently 
a  reflection  of  this  life's  conditions,  was  received  about 
conditions  "over  there."  5.  Notwithstanding"  the  fore- 
g-oing"  suspicious  concomitants  of  the  manifestations, 
many  who  received  messages  were  convinced  that  they 
had  communicated  with  the  spirits  of  their  dead  friends, 
or  at  least  that  the  communications  were  true  to  facts  to 
them  knbwn  but  to  the  medium  unknown  ;  and  they  in- 
variably based  their  faith  in  the  genuineness  of  the  mes- 
sages upon  the  fact  that  they  knew  them  to  be  true  to  the 
reality — which  I  expect  later  to  show  is  one  of  the  rea- 
sons for  not  accepting  such  communications  as  tests,  and 
is  the  basis  of  a  part  of  the  true  explanation  of  the  char- 
acter of  all  such  communications.  6.  The  ag-greg-ate 
result  of  all  our  experience  and  observation  was  that  both 
Mrs.  Davis  and  m3^self  gave  up  the  experiments  as  void 
of  results  as  to  evidence  of  the  existence  of  "spirits"  or 
of  a  future  life,  but  for  some  time  afterward  considered 
the  phenomena  inexplicable.  Later,  I  became  able  to  ac- 
count for  them  all  upon  psych olog^ical  principles — to  my 
own  satisfaction,  at  least. 

One  little  experience  of  my  own  I  will  add,  as  it  has  an 
important  relation  to  the  experimentation  above  briefly 
described.  It  might  be  objected  that  such  automatic  or 
reflex  writing  and  speaking  never  occurs,  and  that  Mrs.  D. 
was  onh-  pretending  to  be  "influenced."  But  in  addition 


104  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

to  the  evidence  aiforded  by  the  chang-es  in  facial  expres- 
sion and  action  and  my  wife's  testimony  (to  me  not  to  be 
called  in  question),  I  had  the  evidence  of  personal  expe- 
rience. Some  eighteen  months  after  these  investigations 
were  begun,  our  little  boy  died,  and  being-  a  precocious 
child  and  of  exceedingly  lovable  disposition,  his  death 
was  a  loss  that  seemed  to  almost  wreck  my  mind  or  even 
cause  my  own  death.  I  thought  of  him  almost  incessant- 
ly, and  often  said,  "If  Charlie  still  lives,  why  can  he  not 
give  some  unmistakable  token  of  it  ?"  One  night  while 
I  was  preparing  for  bed  this  thought  passed  through  my 
mind  with  an  overwhelming  emotion.  Just  as  I  extin- 
guished the  light  and  was  in  the  act  of  getting  into  the 
bed,  I  felt  a  spasmodic  twitching  of  the  muscles  of  my 
throat  and  mouth,  and  then  several  involuntary  attempts 
to  speak.  Of  course  I  thought  it  was  possibly  the  spirit 
of  my  little  bo3s  and  expected  his  name  to  be  announced. 
At  last  just  one  word  was  spoken,  and  that  was  not  Char- 
lie, but  "Papa,"  as  he  always  called  me!  I  was  astonished 
and  almost  convinced  that  my  dear  little  boy  had  actually 
spoken  a  greeting  word  to  me  through  my  own  mouth. 

That  was  the  first  and  only  time  I  was  ever  so  affected. 
Almost  any  Spiritualist  would  say  that  it  was  a  convinc- 
ing "test."  There  are  two  important  aspects  of  this  expe- 
rience :  1,  It  demonstrated  to  me  that  involuntary  or  auto- 
matic speech  is  a  fact ;  2,  the  fact  that  the  word  spoken 
was  not  the  one  which  I  consciously  thought  of  and  ex- 
pected, shows  that  it  was  an  expression  of  subjective  or 
subconscious  mentation. 

In  my  observations  of  the  performances  of  platform 
"test"  mediumship  I  will  here  mention  the  onl}^  incident 
of  any  importance  wherein  I  was  the  recipient  of  the  so- 
called  test,  as  it  will  serve  as  a  rather  striking  illustration 


IS  SPIRITUALISM  A  DEMONSTRATION  ?    105 

of  the  principle  upon  which  one  of  the  most  ** convinc- 
ing-" forms  of  communication  is  made  by  honest  mediums 
and  the  rationale  thereof  which  I  shall  presently  offer. 

§65.— A    REMARKABLE   PLATFORM   TEST. 

In  the  winter  of  1902-3,  at  one  of  the  meeting's  of  the 
Los  Angeles  Liberal  Club,  a  lady  medium  stood  upon  the 
platform  and  undertook  to  demonstrate  the  reality  of 
spirit  communications.  She  seemed  to  succeed  to  the 
satisfaction  of  some  and  the  bewilderment  of  others,  and 
to  utterly  fail  with  some — as  is  usual  in  such  cases. 

During  the  performance  I  sat  directly  in  front  of  the 
medium.  I  was  wholly  unacquainted  with  her,  never  hav- 
ing even  seen  her  before,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge, 
and  I  am  confident  she  knew  nothing  of  my  history  or  of 
m}"  relatives  ;  and  there  were  none  of  the  audience  that 
knew  anything  about  m)"  deceased  relatives,  all  of  whom 
died  many  years  before  in  **the  East,"  as  we  Californians 
say — that  is,  in  Ohio,  Illinois  and  Michigan.  After  she 
had  made  sev^eral  attempts  in  behalf  of  others,  the  medi- 
um suddenly  said  to  me,  *' There  is  something  for  you, 
but  I  cannot  see  distinctly  who  it  is:  give  me  your  hand." 
And  she  stepped  down  from  the  platform  and  grasped 
my  hand,  held  it  about  a  minute,  and  then  stepped  back 
a  few  feet,  put  her  hand  to  her  forehead  for  a  moment, 
and  said:  "There  is  a  lady  standing  here  who  says  she 
is  your  mother.  Her  name  is  Jane,  and  her  message  to 
you  is,  '  God  bless  you  !'  She  says  3^ou  have  seven  near 
relatives  in  the  spirit  world." 

This  to  many  would  have  been  a  very  convincing  test. 
l,.my  mother  died  some  years  before,  a  fact  which  I  am 
quite  sure  the  medium  nor  no  one  else  present,  but  my- 
self, knew  ;  2,  my  mother's  name  was  Jane  ;  3,  seven  near 


106  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

relatives  were  dead — mother,  father,  brother,  sister,  and 
three  sons — and  this  was  unknown  to  all  present  except 
myself,  and,  4,  even  /did  not  know  objectively  that  there 
were  just  seven  of  them — I  did  not  remember  that  I 
had  ever  counted  them,  thougfh  I  knew  each  was  dead. 
But  the  emphatic  messag^e,  "God  bless  you,"  was  not  at 
all  characteristic  of  my  mother,  fof  she  was  of  a  some- 
what skeptical  and  undemonstrative  turn  of  mind,  her 
religfion  was  practical  ethics,  and  T  am  quite  sure  that  I 
never  heard  her  make  that  expression  ;  but  of  my  father 
it  would  have  been  eminently  characteristic. 

How  do  I  explain  this  communication  of  facts  only  to 
myself  known  bofore,  if  not  upon  the  Spiritualistic  hy- 
pothesis, or  that  of  trickery  ?  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
spirit  of  my  deceased  mother,  or  of  any  other  dead  person, 
had  anything-  to  do  with  it,  nor  yet  that  the  medium  did 
anything-  in  the  way  of  trickery  or  intention  to  deceive. 
The  "communication"  was  from  my  own  subconscious 
mind — mind  below  the  plane  of  consciousness — throug-h 
the  sub-conscious  mentation  of  the  medium,  a  process  of 
thoug-ht-transmission  as  compared  with  the  ordinar3^  use 
of  spoken  or  written  words  heard  or  seen  objectively  in 
some  deg-ree  analag-ous  to  the  process  of  wireless  telegfra- 
phy  and  voice-transmission  as  compared  with  transmis- 
sion by  the  use  of  a  wire  and  the  ordinary  teleg-raph  and 
and  telephone.  That  such  sub-conscious  transmission 
and  apprehension  of  unspoken  thoug-ht  is  possible  under 
certain  necessary  conditions,  and  is  often  actualized,  I  am 
led  to  believe  after  much  study  of  the  subject  and  experi- 
ence and  experimentation. 

I  am  aware  that  many  materialists,  who  have  not  in- 
vestig-ated  the  subject,  pooh-pooh  this  theory,  thinking: 


IS  SPIRITUALISM  A  DEMONSTRATION  ?    107 

it  to  be  a  mere  superstition  believed  in  by  over-credulous 
people  only,  and  mistakenly  thinking"  that  it  is  a  spirit- 
istic notion  ;  but  the  theory  is  in  no  degree  dependent  on 
any  kind  of  spiritism,  and  is  as  completely  physical  and 
materialistic  as  that  of  wireless  telegraphy,  the  influence 
of  the  sun  and  moon  in  causing  the  tides,  the  attraction 
of  the  magnet  or  the  phenomenon  of  g-ravitation.  And  it 
is  no  more  mj'sterious," occult  "or  rationally  unbelievable 
than  was  ocean  telegraphy  a  hundred  years  ago,  or  the 
telephone,  wireless  telegraph,  electric  light  and  power, 
only  half  a  century  ago  ;  and,  I  think,  it  will  be  as  scien- 
tifically and  practically  demonstrable  as  any  of  these  in 
the  near  future.  I  also  know  that  some  Spiritualists  use 
this  theory,  or  rather  a  similar  one,  in  their  attempts  to 
explain  the  rationale  of  spirit  communication,  and  to 
make  it  appear  rational  and  scientific  ;  and  that  this  has 
caused  much  of  the  prejudice  of  materialists  and  physi- 
cists against  it.  However,  two  principles  of  modern  sci- 
ence oppose  this  use  of  the  theory  :  first,  the  inadmissible 
use  of  a  groundless  assumption  as  a  premise — the  assump- 
tion that  certain  phenomena  are  caused  by  disembodied 
spirits;  second,  the  inadmissible  use  of  an  occult,  or  un- 
usual, or  bizarre  explanation  of  phenomena  that  may  be 
satisfactorily  accounted  for  when  attributed  to  known 
adequate  causes  and  explained  on  simple,  accepted  prin- 
ciples. It  is  not  the  belief  in  any  of  the  wonderful  phe- 
nomena of  nature  that  constitutes  superstition,  but  belief 
in  false  causes  of  the  phenomena.  To  believe  in  the  ex- 
istence of  volcanic  eruptions,  earthquakes,  storms,  fires, 
floods,  etc.,  is  not  superstition,  and  to  attribute  them  to 
known  natural  causes  is  science  and  common  sense  ;  but 
to  attribute  them  to  vindictive  gods,  "an  angry  God"  or 


108  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

a  "mysterious  Providence,"  above  or  "behind"  nature, 
is  gfross  superstition. 

§  66. — A   STUMBLING-BLOCK    REMOVED. 

It  may  be  asked,  "  If  the  alleg-ed  communication  was 
from  your  own  unconscious  thought  [memory],  how  do 
you  account  for  the  un-characteristic  messag'e,'God  bless 
you'?"  In  this  way  :  Memory  is  of  two  kinds,  conscious 
or  active,  and  unconscious  or  passive.  While  one  is  think- 
ing" of  something  that  occurred  in  the  past,  the  memory 
of  the  occurrence  is  active  and  conscious;  during  the  time 
the  occurrence  is  not  being  thought  of,  the  memory  of  it 
is  passive  and  unconscious.  That  this  latter  kind  of  mem- 
ory exists  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  it  may  be  aroused  or 
called  into  activity  and  consciousness,  an  act  we  call  recol- 
lection ;  we  often  speak  of  such  an  act  as  "recalling  the 
fact."  Furthermore,  this  passive  memory  may  become 
unconsciously  active,  as  when  one  for  instance,  puts  a  let- 
ter in  his  pocket  with  the  intention  of  dropping  it  into  a 
mail  box  on  his  way  down  town,  and  falling  into  compa- 
ny of  a  friend  mails  the  letter  while  his  conscious  thought 
is  concentrated  upon  the  subject  of  conversation,  and  af- 
ter the  conversation  ceases  he  suddenly  recollects  that  he 
was  to  mail  a  letter  and  searches  his  pockets  for  it  in  vain, 
but  after  a  considerable  effort  he  dimly  recollects  of  mail- 
ing it.  This  is  an  example  of  the  reflex  action  peculiar  to 
sub-conscious  mentation — the  "subjective  mind,"  of  Dr. 
Thomson  J.  Hudson — and  shows  how  it  is  the  basis  of 
automatism.  But  this  sub-conscious  activity  of  memory 
is  far  from  infallible,  and  often  leads  one  to  do  the  wrong 
thing  or  commit  a  most  ludicrous  or  disastrous  act.  For 
instance,  one  may  speak  to  someone  (say  his  own  child) 
with  whom  he  is  perfectly  well  acquainted  and  call  him 


IS  SPIRITUALISM  A  DEMONSTRATION  ?    109 

by  the  name  of  another  person  well-known  to  him.  This 
liability  of  the  sub-conscious  active  memory  to  error  and 
confusion  explains  the  mistake  of  the  medium  in  saying* 
that  my  another,  instead  of  mj  father,  said  '* God  bless 
you."  He  always  thus  closed  his  letters  to  me,  during"  sev- 
eral years'  separation,  and  that  fact  retained  in  my  un- 
conscious memory  was  erroneously  reproduced  objectively 
by  the  medium — a  quite  natural  confusion.  And  the  fact 
that  she  mentioned  this  true  characteristic  of  my  father 
is  circumstantial  evidence  that  she  got  it  from  my  subcon- 
scious memory ;  and  the  fact  that  she  attributed  the  re- 
mark to  my  mother  instead  of  my  father  is  only  an  inci- 
dental result  of  the  above-mentioned  liability  to  error 
and  confusion  of  the  passive  memory  being  called  into 
unconscious  activit3^  The  persistence  of  this  unconscious 
activity  of  memory  to  the  permanent  exclusion  of  the 
conscious  memory  and  power  of  normal  recollection  is  a 
form  of  insanity,  and  hence  the  fallacy  of  insane  thought. 
And  hence  the  well-known  tendency  to  insanity  of  medi- 
ums and  so-called  psychics  who  over-indulge  in  the  exer- 
cise of  this  substitution  of  unconscious  action  for  conscious 
action  of  memory.  Herein  lies  the  danger  and  evil  of 
such  practice, 

§  67. — AN   OBJECTION   ANSWERED. 

In  the  above  account  I  said  that  I  did  not  consciously 
know  that  just  seven  of  my  near  relatives  were  dead, 
until  the  fact  was  announced  by  the  medium,  and  this 
may  be  urged  by  some  in  objection  to  the  theory  that  the 
communication  was  from  my  own  mind  and  not  from  a 
disembodied  spirit.     Here  is  the  explanation  : 

The  sub-conscious  passive  memory  may  retain  facts 
once  consciously  known  but  objectively  forgotten  ;  that 


110  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

is,  the  mind  has  no  associated  facts  to  enable  it  to  re-col- 
lect them,  for  all  recollection  is  effected  by  means  of  asso- 
ciation— by  "chains  of  associated  facts."  So  that  while 
I  could  not  then  remember  that  I  had  ever  noticed  that  I 
had  just  seven  deceased  near  relatives,  I  may  really  have 
done  so  at  some  time  in  the  past,  and  this  is  not  only 
possible,  but  quite  probable.  However,  this  probability 
is  not  the  only  explanation  of  this  seeming-  incongruity. 
There  is  another  psycholog-ical  principle  that  affords  a 
positive  basis  of  explanation. 

The  mind  is  capable  of  performing  not  only  simple  but 
extremely  complicated  arithmetical  calculations,  even 
with  astonishing"  celerity,  sub-consciously.  It  is  upon 
this  psychic  law  that  the  so-called  mathematical  prodi- 
g:ies  <'.as  the  famous  Zerah  Col  burn,  for  instance,)  are 
able  to  perform  their  wonderful  mathematical  feats.  In 
such  cases  the  "  prodig-y  "  is  wholly  unable  to  explain  or 
tell  how  he  performs  his  solutions,  because  he  is  not 
conscious  of  any  objective  calculation,  and  the  solutions 
of  even  very  intricate  problems  are  practically  instanta- 
neous. Objective  education  does  not  improve  this  faculty, 
but  the  reverse ;  and  while  it  is  more  usual  in  childhood, 
it  g-enerally  disappears  more  or  less  as  the  person  grows 
older.  These  facts  show  the  subjective  nature  of  the 
mentation.  Such  prodigies  are  simply  "psychics  ;"  that 
is,  their  minds  to  an  unusual  deg-ree  work  sub-consciously 
instead  of  consciously.  Having  had  this  "faculty'' to 
some  extent  in  my  boyhood  years,  I  am  more  than  ordi- 
narily able  to  realize  the  fact  of  its  existence  and  under- 
stand its  cause  and  modus  operandi.  But  all  I  can  say 
as  to  the  how  of  my  instantaneous  answers  to  arithmet- 
ical questions  which  it  was  impossible  for  me  to  answer 
by  deliberate  calculation,  is,  that  I  answered  impulsively 


IS  SPIRITUALISM  A  DEMONSTRATION  ?    Ill 

— spoke  the  very  first  answer  that  came,  flash-like,  into 
my  mind.  Now,  in  the  above  instance  I  knew  that  each 
of  the  seven  relatives  were  dead,  and  by  a  sub-conscious 
process  I  unconsciously  gave  the  total  as  seven. 

This  sub-conscious  mentation  is  not  confined  to  arith- 
metical operations;  it  is  plainly  apparent  in  music,  art, 
poetry,  real  literature,  eloquent  oratory,  true  dramatic 
acting",  and  all  automatism.  It  is  the  basis  of  what  has 
been  erroneously  called  "intuition"  and  "inspiration," 
and  is  characteristic  of  "  genius."  Though  it  is  often  as- 
tonishingly correct,  it  is  far  from  infallible.  It  is  not  a 
super-human  "gift,"  or  even  a  super-animal  acquirement; 
for  it  impels  and  guides  birds  in  their  migrations  and  their 
nest  building,  and  the  bees  in  their  comb  building,  queen 
raising  and  honey  storing,  etc. 

§  68. — A    CURIOUS   SCIENTIFIC  DEMONSTRATION. 

Argument,  definition  and  explanation  are  more  or  less 
convincing,  but  most  people  are  "  from  Missouri"  and  de- 
mand that  ")^ou  must  show  me'''  to  be  convinced.  I  will 
now  respond  to  the  demand  for  a  demonstration  of  subcon- 
scious mentation  producing  visible  mechanical  movement 
subjectively  to  objective  auto-suggestion.  You  need  no 
medium,  or  other  person  present  to  assist  or  deceive,  nor 
any  complicated  or  mysterious  apparatus.  I  hope  each 
and  every  reader  will  try  this  simple  experiment : 

Take  a  thread  about  eighteen  inches  long  and  tie  one 
end  of  it  to  a  heavy  finger  ring,  or  any  other  convenient 
article  of  similar  size  and  weight ;  retire  to  a  room  or 
place  where  3^ou  know  no  other  person  will  intrude  ;  sit 
down,  and  hold  the  free  end  of  the  thread  between  the 
thumb  and  forefinger  of  the  right  hand  and  hold  the 
hand  above  the  forehead  in  such  a  position  as  will  allow 


112  A  FUTURE  LIFK  ? 

the  rinj?  or  weigfht  on  the  thread  to  han^  level  with 
and  about  ten  inches  from  your  eyes.  Sit  quietly  a  mo- 
ment with  the  eyes  and  attention  fixed  upon  the  weig-ht, 
and  say,  as  if  speaking  to  the  little  pendulum,  "Swing: 
to  the  rig-ht  and  left,  swingf  to  the  rig-ht  and  left,'*  repeat- 
ing" the  command  over  and  over  until  the  pendulum  is 
swingeing-  with  long:  movements  and  as  long-  as  you  wish 
it  to  continue,  holding"  (as  you  will  suppose)  3^our  hand 
perfectly  still.  Then  chang-e  the  command  to,  "Swing- 
to  and  fro,"  repeating:  as  before.  Then  say  repeatedly, 
"Swing:  around  in  a  circle — around  and  around,"  repeat- 
ing: often,  as  before.  The  pendulum  will  swing:  in  each 
case  in  obedience  to  your  commands,  chang:ing:  from  one 
to  the  other  without  stopping- ;  and  you  will  all  the  while 
be  unconscious  of  moving:  your  hand,  althoug-h  that  was 
just  what  you  did  to  make  the  pendulum  swing:! 

Notice  these  features  of  this  experiment :  The  subjec- 
tive mentation  obeyed  the  objective  commands  and  made 
the  hand  to  swing:  the  pendulum  thoug:h  the  objective 
mentation  tried  to  prevent  such  movements.  Apparently 
the  pendulum  was  moved  by  the  direct  command,  but 
it  was  really  indirectly  throug:h  your  sub-conscious  men- 
tation and  your  hand.  This  experiment  oug-ht  to  con- 
vince anyone  that  a  medium  may  honestly  believe  that  a 
"spirit"  is  moving-  her  hand  to  write  when  she  is  really 
but  unconsciously  moving-  it  herself;  or  that  a  "spirit" 
is  directly  tipping:  a  table  under  her  hands  when  she  her- 
self is  unconsciously  tipping  it  with  her  hands. 

In  conclusion,  I  find  that  all  Spiritualistic  phenomena 
are  of  "this  world  "  only— "of  the  earth  earthy"— and 
are  not  at  all  a  demonstration  (or  even  remotely  in  evi- 
dence), of  the  existence  of  spirits  or  of  a  future  life. 


CHAPTER    IX. 

O^NT    THE    SO-CALLLED    PHILOSOPHY   OF 
A    FUTURE    LIFE. 

§  69. — DEDUCTIVE    REASONING    AS   A    MEANS   OF    PROOF. 

QUESTIONS  that  are  not,  or  apparently  cannot  be, 
satisfactorily  answered  by  direct  observation  and 
experimentation — that  is,  by  the  scientific  method — are 
often  supposed  to  belong-  to  another  intellectual  plane. 
Two  such  planes  of  mental  enlig-htenraent  are  supposed 
not  only  to  exist,  but  to  be  superior  to  those  of  common 
observation  and  experience  and  scientific  observation  and 
experimentation  and  induction.  One  of  these  is  called 
the  domain  of  religfion — inspiration,  or  supernatural  rev- 
elation and  faith  ;  the  other  is  that  of  transcendental  so- 
called  philosophy.  Tn  both  of  these  domains  the  conclu- 
sion that  man  continues  his  personal  and  conscious  life 
after  the  death  and  disinteg-ration  of  the  material  body 
is,  in  the  final  step,  reached  by  deduction. 

As  to  the  argument  of  the  Christian  theologians — the 
religious  evidence — it  is  based  solely  on  certain  declara- 
tions found  in  the  collection  of  somewhat  ancient  writings 
called  the  "Holy  Bible."  I  have  already  discussed  this 
phase  of  my  subject  to  some  extent,  and  will  only  say  of 
it  here  that  the  claim  that  a  knowledge  of  immortality 
obtained  by  or  from  a  supernatural  revelation  differs  from 
and  is  superior  to,  as  to  method,  reasoning,  is  erroneous. 
The  belief  in  a  future  life  that  is  based  on  the  testimony 

(113) 


114  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

of  biblical  writers  is  the  result  of  deductive  reasoning-, 
thus  :  1.  The  biblical  declarations  are  those  of  an  omnis- 
cient, infallible  being:,  and  are  therefore  true.  2.  One  of 
these  declarations  is  that  man  is  immortal.  3.  Therefore 
man  continues  to  live  after  the  death  of  his  bod}^  This 
is  reasoning",  and  infallible  if  the  premises,  1  and  2,  are 
true.  The  denial  of  the  truth  of  the  conclusion  is  not 
rig-htly  based  on  its  being-  obtained  by  other  methods  than 
those  of  reason,  but  that  the  f  remises^  one  or  both,  are 
false^  and  therefore  the  deduction  is  incorrect. 

In  this  chapter  I  shall  examine  some  of  the  "philosoph- 
ical "  arg^uments  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  immortality. 
But,  as  some  readers  of  my  preceding-  discussions  in  The 
Humanitarian  Review  persist  in  thinking:  that  I  am  try- 
ing- to  prove  that  there  is  no  future  life,  I  w^ill  here  ag-ain 
interject  a  correction :  The  object  of  this  discussion  is  not 
to  prove  the  neg:ative  proposition  that  there  is  no  contin- 
uation of  personality  and  consciousness  after  bodily  death, 
or  even  the  affirmative  one  that  "death  ends  all,"  but  is 
a  critical  inquiry  as  to  the  validity  of  the  evidence  and 
arguments  upon  which  the  past  and  present  belief  in  the 
doctrine  of  post  mortem  life  originated,  persists  and  is 
promulg-ated  and  defended.  If  the  result  is  a  knocking-- 
out  of  the  false  props,  there  are  two  available  horns  of 
the  resultant  dilemma  :  The  reader  can  become  an  unbe- 
liever in  the  doctrine,  or  he  can  become  ag-nostic  and  try, 
if  so  disposed,  to  discover  a  rock  of  science  upon  which 
not  merely  a  belief  in,  but  a  knowledg-e  of,  such  a  life  may 
be  solidly  erected.    "The  truth  shall  make  you  free  !  " 

§  70. — CONSENSUS   OF   THE   WORLD. 

One  of  the  arg-uments  often  employed  in  defense  of  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  life  is  that  which  is  called  "the  con- 


ON  ''PHILOSOPHY"  OF  A  FUTURE  LIFE.     115 

sensus  of  the  world's  opinion."  It  is  assumed  that  what 
''everybody"  believes  must  be  true,  even  if  the  belief  is 
only  a  "  feeling^"  that  this  or  that  is  true  without  regard 
to  objective  facts.  As  a  very  good  example  of  this  argu- 
ment I  will  quote  a  paragraph  from  the  writings  of  Dr. 
Samuel  Johnson,  as  quoted  approving!)^  by  the  spiritist 
author,  William  Howitt,  in  his  "History  of  the  Super- 
natural," vol.  ii.,  page  132,  as  follows: 

"That  the  dead  are  seen  no  more,  I  will  not  undertake 
to  maintain  against  the  concurrent  and  universal  testi- 
mony of  all  ages  and  of  all  nations.  There  is  no  people, 
rude  or  learned,  among  whom  apparitions  of  the  dead  are 
not  related  and  believed.  This  opinion,  which  prevails 
as  far  as  human  nature  is  diffused,  could  become  univer- 
sal only  by  its  truth  ;  those  who  never  heard  of  one  an- 
other would  not  have  agreed  in  a  tale  which  nothing  but 
the  truth  could  render  credible.  That  it  is  doubted  by 
single  cavilerscan  very  little  weaken  the  general  evidence; 
and  some  who  den}^  it  with  their  tongues  confess  it  with 
their  fears." 

The  impotency  of  this  argument  may  be  easily  demon- 
strated. Let  us  take  Dr.  Johnson's  statement  as  a  gen- 
eral form  and  apply  the  "argument  "to  the  support  of 
some  old  opinions  now  well  known  to  be  false.  For  in- 
stance, suppose  that  two  hundred  years  ago  a  writer  had 
said  this  as  proof  of  witchcraft,  substituting  only  the  word 
witches  for  the  words  "  the  dead  "  and  acts  of  witchcraft 
for  "  apparitions  of  the  dead  "  in  the  above  quotation  ; 
or  someone  in  the  days  of  Copernicus  had  used  this  argu- 
ment ag-ainst  hin  by  siyin?  the  same  thing  about  the 
earth  being  flat,  the  sun  and  moon  rising  and  setting,  etc. 
Or  suppose  a  mediaeval  writer  had  said  this  as  to  the  ex- 
istence of  were- wolves,  etc. 

The  truth  is,  that  verv  often  o:ie  man  is  ri^ht  and  tlie 


116  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

whole  world  wrong- on  a  g-iven  question.  The  "concur- 
rent opinion  of  the  world"  opposed  Copernicus,  Galileo, 
Bruno,  Columbus,  and  many  others  whom  we  now  know 
to  have  been  in  the  rig^ht.  Opinion,  even  if  universally 
concurred  in,  is  but  a  delusion  if  facts  do  not  underlie  it, 
and  the  same  illusion  that  establishes  a  false  opinion  in 
the  mind  of  one  man  is  extremely  apt  to  do  the  same  in 
the  minds  of  many  or  even  all  men. 

§  71. — THE   DKSIRE    FOR    IMMORTALITY. 

It  is  often  said  that  all  men  have  an  inherent  desire  for 
a  continuation  of  their  life  beyond  the  death  of  the  body, 
and  that  the  Creator,  or  even  nature,  never  implants  in  a 
being-  an  appetite  or  desire  for  anything-  that  does  not 
exist  or  is  impossible  of  being  acquired.  But  this  is  an- 
other case  of  a  deduction  being  made  from  a  false  prem- 
ise. It  is  not  a  fact  that  there  is  an  inherent  or  integral 
desire  in  man  for  a  life  specifically  after  death  ;  the  in- 
herent desire  is  simply  for  a  continuation  of  life — which 
leads  men  and  brutes  to  obey  "the  first  law  of  nature  " — 
Self-preservation.  The  projection  of  this  desire  into  the 
distant  future  is  an  abnormal  effect  of  the  inherent  anti- 
pathy to  death  carried  to  excess  under  the  stimulus  of  the 
reason  in  its  ability  to  anticipate  death  as  certain  to  oc- 
cur at  some  time  to  all.  That  is,  a  superinduced  desire, 
just  as  is  that  counterpart  of  it  which  leads  to  suicide. 
The  brute  and  the  infant  human,  not  having  reason  de- 
veloped sufficiently  to  enable  them  to  foreknow  the  cer- 
tainty of  death  at  some  time,  and  that  it  will  end  both 
their  pleasures  and  their  pains,  are  satisfied  with  life  in 
the  present  moment  and  exceedingly  limited  future,  and 
hence  they  desire  neither  a  future  life  to  prolong  their 
enjoyment  of  living  nor  death  to  curtail  their  sufferings 


ON  "PHILOSOPHY"  OF  A  FUTURE  LIFE.     117 

ing-,  then,  legfitimately  pertains  to  bodily  life  on  earth. 

It  has  also  been  said  that  man  cannot  conceive  of  that 
which  does  not  or  cannot  exist,  at  least  as  to  its  elements, 
and,  as  men  do  have  conceptions  of  spirit,  a  spirit  world, 
and  a  spirit  life  after  death,  these  things  must  exist  in 
reality.  I  answer  that  no  man  has  ever  conceived  of  these 
-spiritual  things  except  as  mere  variants  of  the  material 
things  of  his  experience.  Spirit  originates  from  air  or 
breath  ;  the  spirit  world  is  conceived  of  as  a**  world,"  or  a 
*'  land,"  or  a  "  city."  The  spirit  life  is  but  a  counterfeit 
of  this  life.  There  are  absolutely  no  specific  spirit  con- 
ceptions and  no  words  in  any  language  relating  to  spirit 
things  which  do  not  primarily  relate  to  material  things. 

§72. — NECESSARY   TO   COMPLETENESS. 

Many  believers  in  immortality  base  their  belief  largely 
on  the  assumption  that  this  life  is  a  sort  of  probationary 
one,  or  a  preparatory  stage  of  an  endless  life,  somewhat 
analogous  to  the  foetal  life  as  leading  up  to  the  far  more 
advanced  life  following  birth.  They  usually  base  this  as- 
sumption on  the  apparent  fact  that  man  progresses  in  this 
life  mentally  or  *' spiritually,"  but  always  falls  far  short 
of  attaining  that  knowledge  and  perfection  of  character 
necessary  to  enable  him  to  enjoy  unalloyed  happiness— 
which  is  assumed  be  the  only  goal  that  would  justify  the 
creation  or  evolution  of  man.  These  people  argue  that 
the  wisdom  that  controls  the  universe  could  not  fail  in 
conducting  any  work  once  begun  to  completeness,  and 
that  the  earth  life  falling  far  short  of  completeness  is  a 
proof  that  there  will  be  a  continuation  after  death  to  af- 
ford better  conditions  for  completing  the  design  of  in^- 
nite  wisdom  in  relation  to  mankind. 

There  are  some  fatal  defects  in  this  reasoning,  however. 


118  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

In  the  first  place  man  does  not  invariably  prog-ress  on  an 
upward  scale  throughout  a  full-length  physical  lifetime, 
mentally  no  more  than  physically.  The  progress  of  a 
man  from  conception  to  death  is  not  in  a  straight  line  up- 
ward, but  forward  in  a  cycle^on  a  curved  path  or  orbit 
from  conception  up  through  childhood  to  the  zenith  of 
manhood  at  middle-age  and  over  and  down  through  pro- 
verbial "second  childhood  "  to  death  and  dissolution — 
a  process  in  no  way  different  in  kind  from  that  of  a  plant 
in  its  progress  through  its  lifetime  from  fecundation  of 
the  ovule  up  through  the  periods  of  germination,  growth 
of  root  and  stalk  and  blossoming  to  the  meridian  at  seed- 
perfection,  and  down  through  the  "sere  and  yellow  leaf  " 
to  death  and  decay,  when  the  entire  plant,  like  the  hu- 
man body,  returns  to  its  original  state  of  minerals,  water 
and  gases  composing  portions  of  the  inorganic  earth — in 
both  cases  in  completed  cycles  literally  from  "earth  to 
earth"  and  from  "dust  to  dust." 

Another  unwarranted  assumption  in  this  "philosophy" 
is  that  happiness  is  the  object  of  human  life,  whereas  it 
is  not  an  ultimate  end,  but  a  means  to  that  end.  So  far 
as  science  has  discovered  the  purposes,  objects  or  ends  of 
actions  of  living  cells,  organs,  individuals  and  associa- 
tions, they  are  ultimately  the  maintainance  of  life  by 
self-preservation,  reproduction,  maintenance  of  the  young 
and  reciprocal  acts  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole,  with  pain 
and  mental  anguish  as  penal  or  coercive,  and  pleasure  and 
happiness  as  reward  or  attractive  means  to  guide  to  those 
proximate  ends  and  that  ultimate  end.  Mother  Nature 
guides  and  directs  her  children,  to  the  end  that  life  on  the 
earth  shall  persist,  with  a  whip  in  her  left  hand  and  a  su- 
gar-plum in  her  right !  And  right  here  is  the  foundation 
of  all  government ;  unconsciously  men  have  imitated  Na- 


ON  "PHILOSOPHY"  OF  A  FUTURE  LIFE.     119 

ture  more  or  less  perfectly  in  the  family,  the  State,  and 
all  other  asociations. 

As  to  man's  conscious  efforts,  they  are  made  under  the 
illusion  that  pleasure  and  happiness  constitute  the  ulti- 
mate end  of  all  his  voluntary  acts.  He  does  not  eat  and 
drink  with  the  conscious  purpose  of  supplying"  his  body 
with  the  elements  of  its  sustenance,  but  does  so  to  grati- 
fy his  appetite — to  afford  himself  pleasure  ;  copulation  is 
not  for  the  conscious  purpose  of  reproduction,  but  for 
that  of  the  gratification  of  the  sexual  desire — pleasure  ; 
the  maintainance  of  the  family  is  not  consciously  to  the 
end  that  human  life  may  persist,  but  that  conjugal  love 
and  the  love  of  offspring  may  be  gratified,  affording  hap- 
piness.' 

Therefore  the  assumption  that  the  ultimate  end  of  life 
is  not  attained  on  this  side  of  death  is  not  well-founded, 
and  the  conclusion  that  another  life  is  necessary  to  com- 
pleteness and  the  justification  of  the  infinite  wisdom  that 
issupposed  to  control  the  progress  of  life  and  all  other  ac- 
tivities of  the  universe  is  not  logically  warranted.  Even 
if  true  that  there  is  an  object  of  life  still  beyond  the  one 
science  now  finds  to  be  the  final,  the  facts  to  prove  that 
truth  are  not  in  the  theory  above  discussed. 

Furthermore,  it  is  very  doubtful  if  finite  wisdom  is  jus- 
tifiable in  assuming  to  decide  what  is  or  is  not  consistent 
with  ^wfinite  wisdom. 

§73. — "the  law  of  compensation  demands  it.-* 

Much  stress  is  often  laid  on  the  proposition  that  there 
is  a  natural  law  of  moral  compensation  by  which  exact 
justice  must  be  sometime  and  somewhere  meted  to  all 
men,  and  that  it  is  plainly  evident  that  this  law  is  not 
fulfilled  in  this  life,  and  therefore  there  must  be  a  future 


120    -  A  FUTURE  LIFE  ? 

life  where  an  exact  balance  of  g-ood  ag-ainst  evil  will  be 
attained — where  those  who  had  more  than  their  due  of 
the  evils  of  life  will  be  compensated  with  abundance  of 
*'g:ood  things,"  and  those  who  enjoyed  more  than  their 
due  of  the  "gfood  things"  of  this  life  will  be  compelled  to 
suffer  by  torture  their  share  of  evil.  This  is  the  basis  of 
the  Christian's  notion  of  heaven  and  hell,  as  lucidly  illus- 
trated by  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus.  But 
many  spiritualists  and  other  non-believers  in  the  biblical 
g-old-paVed  and  walled-in  heaven,  and  hell  of  literal  fire 
and  brimstone,  still  cling  to  a  mild  modification  of  those 
barbaric  conceptions. 

It  is  argued  that  infinite  justice  demands  such  an  oppor- 
tunity for  the  fulfillment  of  the  assumed  "law  of  compen- 
sation," and  that  the  moral  integrity  of  the  supreme.be- 
ing  or  power  of  the  universe  (whatever  that  m^j  be  con- 
ceived to  be)  could  not  otherwise  exist. 
_  From  my  point  of  view,  this  *' philosophy"  is  sophis- 
tical. First,  I  deny  that  there  is  such  a  natural  law  of 
moral  compensation,  as  is  demonstrated  every  day  all 
around  us.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  morality— justice, 
mercy,  etc.^n  nature  as  considered  apart  from  llie  re- 
lationship between  living  beinjgs.  Nature  as  ruthlessly 
tort ureis  t lie  morally  innocent  bat>e  with  disease  or  acci- 
dent as  she  does  the  "  sinner"  who  is  guilty  of  a  lifetime 
of  crime;  she  brings  into  being  the  sejisate  rabbit,  deer 
and  song-bird,  and  also  the  merciless  wolf^  hawk^and 
(in)human  "sport"  to  mangle  and  torture  them.  The 
ancient  declaration,  confirmed  by  modern  science,  that 
the  results  of  the  parents'  sins  "  are  visited  upon  the  chil- 
dren unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation,"  itself  proves 
the  absence  of  morality  or  justice  in  general  nature. 

Secondly,  no  amount  of  future  good  things  can  rectify 
p^ast  evils,  or  future  suffering  of  one  compensate  another 
for  his  past  sufferings.  Dkath  is  the  name  of  the  "Great 
Judge"  who  balances  all  accounts. 


ON  ''  PHILOSOPHY  "  OP  A  FUTURE  LIFE.     121 

§  74. — THE   DOCTRINE   GOOD — TRUE   OR   FALSE. 

One  argfutnent  that  deserves  attention  in  this  discus- 
sion is  not  proper! 3^  one  for  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  but 
for  its  utilit3\  reg"ardless  whether  it  be  the  true  or  a  false 
doctrine. 

It  is  claimed;  in  an  apologetic  way,  that,  if  there  be  a 
future  life,  a  belief  in  it  is  an  incentive  to  the  believer  to 
so  conduct  his  career  throughout  his  present  life  that  he 
will  be  "  prepared  "  when  the  change  comes  to  enter  the 
new  life  on  a  higher  plane  and  so  from  the  first  secure 
more  happiness  and  endure  less  unhappiness  therein, — 
and  even  if  such  places  as  the  literal,  "orthodox"  heaven 
and  hell  do  not  (or  will  not)  exist:  and  that  this  state 
of  preparedness  is  highly  beneficial  to  him  and  his  neigh- 
bor in  this  life  even  if  his  belief  is  an  error  and  death 
shall  forev^er  end  his  career.  Also  that  the  belief  yields 
much  comfort  and  affords  the  groundwork  of  a  hope  that 
stimulates  him  to  achieve,  and  forms  a  silver  lining  to 
every  dark  cloud  of  adversity  that  maj-  overshadow  him. 
That  should  this  hope  be  delusive  and  the  dead  believer 
never  awaken  to  its  realization,  nor  even  to  the  discovery 
of  his  error,  he  would  be  none  the  worse  off  on  account  of 
the  belief  or  the  special  exertions  he  had  been  deluded 
into  making  to  prepare  himself  for  a  future  life.  Hence 
if  the  belief  in  a  future  life  be  or  be  not  based  on  fact — 
be  the  doctrine  true  or  false,  its  results  are  goo.d. 

This  argument  carries  great  weight  with  many  people, 
even  among  the  intellectual,  learned  and  liberal-minded- 
Some  would  say  after  reading  m}'  own  above-statement  of 
it  that  it  is  conclusive  and  irrefutable.  But  let  us  look 
closely  and  critical!}^  into  the  merits  of  this  argument. 

There  are  certain  moral  maxims  representing  general 


122  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

ethical  principles  which  have  received  almost  universal 
approval,  and  are  recog-nized  as  not  wholly  expedient  in 
all  cases.  Take  this  :  "Always  tell  the  truth."  Almost 
everybody  endorses  that  as  a  sound  g-eneral  principle,  yet 
in  practice  nearly  if  not  quite  everybody  finds  it  inexpedi- 
ent in  exceptional  cases.  For  instance,  a  mother  lies  in 
a  critical  condition  of  illness  ;  her  little  child,  while  cros- 
sing a  street,  is  crushed  to  death  by  a  street  car  ;  the 
physician  says  to  tell  the  mother  the  truth  now  would 
cause  her  to  die  instantly  from  shock.  Soon  she  misses 
her  child,  and  says  to  the  nurse,  "Where  is  my  baby? — 
bring"  him  to  me — it  does  me  so  much  good  to  see  him  at 
least  once  a  day  ;  it  is  for  his  sake  I  wish  and  hope  to 
g-et  well  ag-ain."  Should  the  truth  be  told?  An  answer 
of  some  kind  must  be  given.  A  falsehood  is  deliberately 
invented  to  suit  the  conditions.  "O,"  replies  the  nurse, 
"we  have  sent  him  away  to  stay  with  his  auntie  until 
you  get  well ;  we  can't  give  him  proper  care  while  you  are 
sick."  So  in  thousands  of  cases,  )^et  Always  tell  the  truth 
is  a  good  gfeneral  principle.  The  Golden  Rule  is  also  far 
from  exceptionless,  yet  as  a  ^e7tera I  principle,  is  endorsed 
almost  universally.  So  with  "honesty  is  the  best  policy," 
"thou  Shalt  not  kill,"  etc.,  they  are  g-ood  general  but 
not  universal  principles. 

The  general  principle,  then,  that  truth  is  more  benefi- 
cent than  falsehood  applies  here  to  this  question  of  a  fu- 
ture life  ;  for  while  we  may  admit  that  there  are  certain 
cases  of  abnormal  intellectual  and  moral  conditions  in 
which  the  truth  as  to  a  future  life  would  not  be  benefi- 
cent, and  therefore  would  be  inexpedient,  I  think  it  must 
be  admitted  that  as  ^  general princifle^  applicable  under 
normal  conditions  of  intellectual  and  moral  mentality,  it 
would  be  not  only  safe  but  beneficent. 


ON  ''PHILOSOPHY"  OF  A  FUTURE  UFE.     123 

And  there  is  another  aspect  of  this  objection  to  affirm- 
ing: the  truth,  if  it  be  the  truth,  that  death  ends  forever 
the  conscious  personalit}-  of  the  individual.  It  is  this  :  Is 
it  a  fact  that  a  belief  in  a  future  life,  even  if  false,  is  an 
incentive,  as  a  g-eneral  rule,  to  rigfht  living-  in  this  life? 
Is  it  not  true  that  a  ver_v  larg-e  portion  of  the  energ-y  and 
time  and  money  expended  in  the  attempts  to  ''prepare' 
ourselves,  and  induce  others  to  do  so,  is  entirely  useless 
as  related  to  achieving-  the  most  and  best  in  this  life,  if 
there  be  no  other  ? — not  only  useless,  but  detrimental  ? 
Granting  that  the  supposed  "prepared "  believer  "  is  none 
the  worse  off  after  death  if  death  ends  his  career,"  is  it  not 
true  that  he  is  the  -worse  off  before  death  on  account  of 
misdirected  effort— wasted  time,  energy  and  money  ?  For 
example,  much  time  wasted  in  useless  praying,  exhorting- 
others  to  speciall}"  prepare  for  death,  in  writing,  printing 
and  distributing  literature  in  propag-ation  of  false  doc- 
trines, to  induce  others  to  also  waste  their  time  and  ener- 
gies in  the  same  way  ?  And  is  not  the  daily  life  of  many, 
if  not  all,  who  consider  themselves  specially  prepared  for 
a  happ3^  life  after  death,  far  from  the  most  beneficent 
possible  for  the  individual  and  society  in  this  life  ? 

Much  that  is  thought  by  believers  in  Christianit}^  to  be 
essential  as  preparation  for  happiness  in  a  future  life  is, 
I  think,  self-evidentl)"  absurd  as  means  either  to  that  end 
or  to  welfare  in  this  life  ;  such,  for  instance,  as  beliefs  in 
metaphysical  dogmas,  praying,  singing  and  acclaiming- 
words  of  fulsome  flattery  to  an  unknown  person  supposed 
to  be  superhuman  and  supernatural — even  if  there  be  such 
a  being — performance  of  mystical  rites  and  ceremonies, 
etc.  It  appears  to  me  to  be  more  consistent  to  assume, 
since  we  know  nothing  of  the  conditions  and  demands  of 
any  possible  future  state,  that  that  conduct  which  in  this 


124  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

life  most  results  in  beneficence  to  the  individual  and  the 
species — humanity — affords  the  very  best  preparation  for 
entry  upon  any  other  life  that  may  succeed  this  one. 

But,  after  all — g^ranting-  that  there  is  some  value  in  the 
special  preparation  for  future  existence  when  properly 
and  sincerely  made — it  is  at  least  an  open  question  as  to 
a  haz}^  indefinite  belief  in  immortality  really  influencing- 
the  sincere  conduct  of  people  to  any  appreciable  deg-ree. 
Note  that  I  say  sincere  conduct  ;  and  by  this  I  mean  such 
as  is  directed  to  g-ood  ends  because  it  is  right -diWA  not  be- 
cause one  hopes  to  personally  avoid  the  rod  and  secure  a 
sug-ar-plum  "over  there."  Daily  observation  and  news- 
paper reading,  and  records  of  our  courts  and  penal  insti- 
tutions show  that  the  criminal,  the  vagrant  and  the  sen- 
sualist are  almost  if  not  quite  every  one  believers  in  a  fu- 
ture life  ;  that,  too,  with  the  special  frills  of  an  orthodox 
heaven  and  hell  attached.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who 
do  not  believe  in  any  post  mortem  reward  or  punishment 
or  any  kind  of  life  after  death,  but  who  believe  that  con- 
duct brings  its  own  rewards  and  penalties,  promptly  and 
invariably  under  immutable  natural  (aws,  are  almost 
without  exception  people  of  strong-  moral  character,  com- 
paratively blameless  in  their  personal  habits  and  social 
relations.  The  names  of  these  people  are  not  to  be  found 
in  the  criminal-court  records  and  prison  rosters  with  those 
of  the  eloping-  pastor  and  his  choir  affinity,  the  proverbial 
defaulting-  "sabbath-school  teacher"  and  the  "devout 
Catholic"  homicide  who  goes  from  the  gallows  to  Para- 
dise on  a  special  permit  procured  for  him  by  a  priest  who 
claims  to  have  a  "pull"  on  the  occupant  of  the  judgment 
seat  of  the  infinite  universe  ! 

Is  there  any  reality  as  a  basis  for  the  claim  that  the  be- 
lief in  an  after-life,  even  if  a  delusion,  is  beneficial  in  the 


ON  "PHILOSOPHY"  OF  A  FUTURE  LIFE.     125 

present  life  as  a  stimulant  to  zealous  action  for  good,  or  as 
a  comforter  in  time  of  trouble — an  antidote  for  pessimism 
and  nourisher  of  optimism  ?  I  answer  that,  if  ever  so,  it 
is  exceptional.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  such  belief  is  so  hazy 
and  dreamy  that  it  is  as  lig-ht  as  ''air3^  nothing-ness"  so 
far  as  impressing-  our  minds  is  concerned  when  we  have 
them  concentrated  upon  the  common-sense,  concrete  and 
practical  things  and  affairs  of  this  life,  or  when  storm- 
tossed  by  the  waves  and  winds  of  adversity  and  sorrow? 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  my  somewhat  extensive  acquain- 
tance with  believers  and  disbelievers  in  the  doctrine,  i 
find  the  latter  no  less  zealous,  or  even  self-sacrificing,  in 
good  works,  and  optimistic  and  cheerful,  than  the  latter; 
the  chief  difiFerence  being  that  as  the  unbeliever  takes  a 
calmer  and  more  business-like  view  of  life,  he  does  not 
give  way  to  fanaticism  and  waste  his  thought,  labor  and 
means  on  institutions  and  missions  which  give  no  reason- 
able promise  of  affording  really  beneficent  results. 

Is  it  not  true  that  millions  of  believers  in  a  future  life 
— the  great  unchurched  majority  who  make  no  **  profes- 
sion of  religion,"  but  who  '*hold  to  "  the  various  church 
creeds  as  tenaciously  as  do  the  others — believe  in  the  fu- 
ture existence,  in  the  conventional  walled-in  12x12  heaven 
and  eternal  hell  of  literal  fire  and  brimstong,  go  right 
along  day  by  daj^  and  year  by  year  throughout  their  lives 
devoting  their  time  and  energies  to  this  world  with  no 
effort  to  specially  prepare  for  a  future  life?  They  carry 
this  belief  as  thej^  wear  their  coats,  so  completely  accus- 
tomed to  it  that  they  are  wholly  unconscious  that  it  has 
any  weight.  Even  the  most  savage  barbarians  believe 
in  a  future  life  ;  does  their  belief  in  the  least  moderate 
their  savagery  ?  Of  all  men,  scientists  and  and  natural- 
ists are  far  the  least  confident  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine 


126  A  FUTURE   LIPK  ? 

— almost  universally  ag^nostic  if  not  avowed  disbelievers 
in  the  doctrine  ;  and  of  all  men  they  are  as  a  class  by  far 
the  most  upright  and  least  "  materialistic"  (in  the  bad 
sense  of  that  word);  no  class  of  men  so  serenely  meet  ad- 
versity, endure  deprivation,  intensely  rejoice  in  the  con- 
templation of  the  this-world  life  they  know  something 
about,  or  more  calmly  and  remorsely  at  last, 

*     *     *     "  when  the  summons  comes  to  join 
The  innumerable  caravan  that  moves 
To  that  m5^sterious  realm  where  each  shall  take 
His  chamber  in  the  silent  halls  of  death, 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  approach  the  grave, 
Like  one  who  wraps  the  drapery  of  his  couch 
About  him  and  lies  down  to  pleasant  dreams." 

The  reader  should  carefully  note  that  I  am  not  saying 
that  a  well-founded  belief — such  as  we  call  knowledge — 
in  a  future  life,  accompanied  by  some  definite  knowledge 
of  its  conditions  and  requirements,  would  not  afford  the 
good  results,  more  or  less,  that  are  claimed  for  the  present 
superstitious,  vague  one.  Remember  that  in  this  discus- 
sion I  am  endeavoring  to  show  that  there  is  no  really 
scientific  basis  for  the  doctrine  of,  or  the  belief  in,  any 
continuation  or  resuscitation  of  the  conscious  personality 
after  the  death  and  disintegration  of  the  material  bod}^ 
to  the  end  that  critical  inquir}^  and  research  by  the  modern 
science  method — crucial  observation  and  experimentation 
and  careful  logical  induction  from  all  the  correlated  facts 
possible  to  be  obtained — may  intervene  and  supply  a  real, 
demonstrable  knowledge  of  the  reality  and  conditions  of 
a  future  life,  or  else  such  evidence  of  the  nature  of  con- 
scious personality  and  the  conditions  upon  which  it  is  de- 


ON  *' PHILOSOPHY"  OF  A  FUTURE  LIFE.     127 

pendent  as  would  prove  life  after  death  to  be  impossible. 
Mere  belief  is  a  house  built  on  sand,  and  the  occupant 
lives  in  continual  doubt  and  fear  that  the  floods  come 
and  destroy  it ;  superstitious  faith  is  a  castle  in  the  air, 
and  is  the  plaything-  or  victim  of  every  wind  that  blows  ; 
but  real  scientific  knowledge  is  a  mansion  built  on  bed- 
rock, and  the  floods  and  winds  maj^  come  but  they  can- 
not prevail  against  it. 

§  75 — KINDNESS   SOMETIMES    CAUSES   PAIN. 

One  objection  that  has  been  urged  against  any  attempt 
to  remove  the  false  supports  of  the  superstitious  belief  in 
a  future  life  is  that,  if  there  really  be  no  such  life  it  is 
cruel  and  wrong  to  undeceive  people  who  are  happy  in 
that  belief  while  unconscious  of  its  fallacy,  because  such 
awakening  gives  them  great  mental  pain  before  they  be- 
come resigned  to  their  fate  as  foreshadowed  in  an  opposite 
belief.     To  this  I  reply  : 

In  this  we  should  be  g-overned  as  we  usually  are  in  the 
use  of  the  Golden  Rule  and  other  moral  maxims  in  every- 
day afi'airs  :  i.  e.,  supplement  them  with  the  Rule  of  Ex- 
pediency, as  explained  above  in  the  fifth  paragraph  of 
§  74.  I  may  illustrate  my  meaning  by  examples  from  sur- 
g-ery  and  dentistry.  In  certain  cases  of  mangled  or  dis- 
eased limbs  the  rule  with  surgeons  is  to  amputate  the  af- 
fected part,  and  this  involves  infliction  of  pain  and  risk 
of  death  from  shock  or  depletion  ;  but  in  some  of  these 
cases  the  condition  of  the  patient  is  such  that  the  surgeon 
refuses  to  amputate  because  he  foresees  that  the  patient 
would  surel}'  die  from  shock  or  loss  of  blood.  In  cases 
of  g-unshot  wounds,  attempt  to  find  and  remov.e  the  bullet 
is  the  rule,  though  a  painful  operation  ;  but  in  exceptional 
cases  this  is  deemed  inexpedient.     In  performing  painful 


128  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

operations  the  rule  is  to  use  an  anesthetic,  but  in  certain 
conditions  it  is  inexpedient  to  do  so.  The  dentist  is  in  the 
same  way  guided  by  certain  ^reneral  rules  which  are  sup- 
plemented or  supplanted  under  certain  conditions  by  the 
rule  of  expediency. 

And  so,  I  believe,  under  normal  mental  conditions  it  is 
right  and  proper  to  propagate  the  truth,  whatever  it  may 
be,  as  to  the  question  of  a  future  life  ;  but  in  certain  cases 
of  abnormal  mentality  it  may  be  inexpedient  to  do  so,  as  at 
a  death-bed,  in  cases  of  old  age,  insanity,  imbecility,  etc. 
But  this  is  not  the  only  truth  that  should  be  withheld  un- 
der such  conditions.  In  general^  "the  truth  shall  make 
[people]  free." 


CHAPTER    X. 

THE   QUESTIOlSr    OF   FTJTURE   LIFE    FROM 
THE   SCIEXTIFIC    STANDPOZNT. 

§  76. — INTRODUCTORY — THE   STATUS   OF   SCIENCE. 

IS  SCIENCE  competent  to  g-ive  a  final  and  conclusive 
answer  to  the  question  of  a  future  life  ?  Have  sci- 
entists discovered  laws  of  nature  that  establish  either  the 
certainty  or  the  possibility,  on  the  one  hand,  or  the  non- 
existence or  the  impossibility,  on  the  the  other  hand,  of 
a  continuance  or  a  revival  of  the  conscious  personality 
after  the  death  and  disintegration  of  the  human  body  ? 
Have  they  discovered  any  facts  that  indicate  even  the 
probability  or  the  improbability  of  a  future  life? 

Theologians  often  assert  that  "our  boasted  science  " 
is  at  best  no  more  reliable  than  "faith,"  because  much 
that  was  accepted  as  scientific  truth  yesterday  is  rejected 
by  the  scientists  themselves  today,  and  that  probably 
much  that  is  accepted  today  will  be  rejected  tomorrow. 
To  this  I  reply  : 

There  are  several  factors  of  what  is  popularly  consid- 
ered to  be  science.  1.  Certain  hypotheses — generaliza- 
tions accepted  tentatively  ;  2.  Certain  speculative  theo- 
ries— mixtures  of  conceptions  of  what  is  and  personal 
opinion  of  what  ought  to  be  ;  3.  Certain  principles  or 
laws  of  nature  which  hav^e  been  obtained  by  inductive 
reasoning  from  all  the  related  facts  that  observation  and 
experimentation  have  ever  afi^orded,  and  which  harmon- 

[129] 


130  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

ize  or  correlate  so  completely  as  to  appear  indispensable 
to  the  present  order  of  nature.  It  is  the  1st  and  2nd  phases 
of  science  that  chang-e  from  time  to  time  as  new  facts  are 
discovered  ;  but  strictly  speaking  these  two  so-called  fac- 
tors of  science  are  not  science  at  all,  but  belief — faith — 
as  science  is  knowledge^  so  that  it  is  not  our  science  (3) 
which  changes  and  is  unreliable,  but  our  belief — "faith." 
Hypotheses  and  theories,  belief  and  faith,  are  temporary 
makeshifts  that  we  adopt  in  lieu  of  such  science  as  we 
are  not  as  yet  in  possession  of. 

Two  men  are  traveling*  upon  the  plains  of  Arizona;  one, 
S,  an  experienced  plainsman,  the  other,  B,  not  so.  They 
are  without  water  and  painfully  thirsty.  Off  to  the  left 
of  their  course  they  see  what  appears  to  be  a  beautiful 
lake  of  limpid  water  ;  to  the  rig-ht  they  see  a  range  of 
brush-covered  hills.  B  wishes  to  turn  to  the  left  because 
he  believes  there  is  a  lake  of  water  in  that  direction  ;  but 
S  wishes  to  turn  to  the  rigfht  because  he  knows  there  is  a 
spring-  of  pure  water  in  a  canyon  of  those  hills.  They 
argfue,  and  B  becomes  angry  and  insists  that  S  may  be 
wrong:,  but  that  he  believes  there  is  water  upon  the  left, 
and  so  they  part ;  S  turns  to  the  right,  B  to  the  left.  At 
lengfth  S  reaches  the  spring  in  the  hills.  He  slakes  his 
thirst,  bathes  his  tired  feet  in  the  little  stream  from  the 
spring,  rests  a  few  hours,  fills  his  canteens  with  water, 
and  returns  to  the  trail.  He  sees  nothing  of  B  but  his 
tracks  in  the  hot  sands.  He  must  try  to  find  B,  supply 
him  with  water  and  guide  him  back  to  the  trail.  Many 
hours  he  follows  B's  wavering  tracks.  He  finds  B's  coat, 
a  little  further  on,  his  hat,  then  his  shoes,  and  at  last  B's 
dead  body  stretched  upon  the  sand,  with  hands  reaching 
toward  the  fateful  mirage!  This  is  no  baseless  fancy, 
but  an  illustration  drawn  from  hundreds  of  realities. 


FROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OF  SCIENCE       131 

When  we  know,  w^e  should  act  according-l}^  When  we 
only  believe,  we  should  not  be  satisfied  till  we  know.  And 
when  we  onl}^  believe  we  know,  w^e  should  continue  our  in- 
quiry until  we  know  that  we  know!    That  is  science. 

But  as  long-  as  we  are  unable  to  acquire  positive  knowl- 
edge upon  any  question  we  are  justifiable  in  adopting-  a 
theory  or  hypothesis  that  is  to  the  g-reatest  deg-ree  sup- 
ported by  correlated  facts,  but  such  acceptance  should  al- 
ways be  tentative. 

In  considering-  the  question  of  a  future  life,  then,  we 
may  not  only  accept  real  scientific  principles  as  conclu- 
,  sive,  but  well-supported  hypotheses  and  theories  in  pref- 
erence to  mere  belief  based  only  or  chiefly  on  dog-matic 
statements  of  others  who  have  no  actual  knowledg-e  upon 
the  subject,  no  matter  how  great  their  number,  or  upon 
illusor3%  very  limited  or  superficial  observation.-  But  we 
should  never  accept  such  theories  or  hypotheses  as  con- 
clusive— only  as  indicating-  possibility  or  probability. 

Four  branches  of  naturaL'science  are  speciallj^  related  to 
the  question  of  a  future  life  :  physics,  chemistry,  physi- 
olo&y*  psychology  ;  and  I  will  discuss  the  question  from 
the  standpoint  of  each  in  this  order.  But  in  doing  this  I 
shall  lay  little  stress  upon  the  personal  opinions,  pro  or 
con,  of  scientists  as  to  the  main  question,  because  we  all 
know  that  even  scientists  are  influenced  by  their  feelings 
and  desires,  inherited  beliefs,  sug-gestion,  and  popular 
opinion,  in  matters  of  a  supposedly  '' religfious  "  nature. 
What,  then,  is  the  view  from  the  standpoint  of  science  ? 

Part  I. — From  the  Mechanical  Point  of  View. 

§  77. — THE    ANATOMICAL   MECHANISM. 

Physically,  the  human  body  is  a  mechanical  apparatus 
composed  of  a  very  complex  ag-g-regfation  of  correlated, 


132  A   FUTURE   LIFE? 

reciprocating-  and  interdependent  mechanical  structures 
called  tissues,  org-ans  and  systems.  There  are  solid  levers 
with  hing-es  and  lubricated  bearings,  various  receptacles 
and  .tubes  or  pipes  for  holding*  and  conveying  liquids  and 
semi-solids  and  gases — air  and  carbonic  acid  ;  and  there 
are  springs  and  connecting'-rods,  screens,  pumps,  heating- 
apparatus,  cooling  devices,  conductors  (nerves),  gfenera- 
tors  or  batteries  and  dynamos  (g-anglions,  spinal  cord, 
cerebellum  and  cerebrum)  analagous  to  our  electrical  ap- 
paratuses ;  there  are  cameras  with  lenses,  stops,  shutters, 
sensitive  films,  developers  and  fixers  (memory);  there  are 
acoustic  devices,  valves,  chemical  apparatuses  (glands), 
cutting  tools,  grinding  mills,  etc.,  etc.  When  any  of  these 
parts  of  the  grand  machine  are  broken,  deranged  or  worn 
out,  they  fail  in  part  or  wholly  to  do  their  proper  work 
and,  more  or  less,  derange  all  the  other  parts  (disease), 
and  when  injury  is  very  great  or  the  whole  machine  be- 
comes worn  out  it  wholly  ceases  to  produce  any  of  the 
results  which  it  was  apparently  designedly  adapted  to 
produce  (dies)  and  decays. 

§  78. — WHAT   OPERATES   THESE   MACHINES  ? 

I  have  discussed  this  phase  of  the  subject  somewhat 
in  the  sixth  chapter,  and  hence  I  will  in  this  place  only 
brieflv  supplement  that  discussion  with  a  short  definite 
statement  and  an  ilhistration  from  inanimate  nature. 

It  is  said  that  "a  machine  cannot  operate  unless  it  is 
supplied  with  power  from  an  external  source  and  is  con- 
trolled bj^  an  intelligent  operator  distinct  from  the  ma- 
chine itself,"  but  this  is  a  narrow  view  of  the  subject.  We 
must  take  a  more  comprehensive  view  of  nature — include 
art  and  artisanship  and  man  himself  as  parts  of  nature, 
his  acts  all  natural,  and  therefore  all  of  his  so-called  arti- 


FROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OF  SCIENCE       133 

ficial  productions,  including"  all  machines,  products  of 
nature.  Every  movement,  every  act,  of  man  is  a  natural 
sequence  of  an  infinite  train  of  movements  or  acts  extend- 
ing: back  in  the  eternal  past,  under  the  law  of  the  correla- 
tion of  modes  of  motion.  So  a  man-made  machine  is  not 
a  product  of  mind  as  an  '* uncaused  cause,"  but  of  a  chain 
of  causes  and  effects  inevitably  and  necessarily  leading" 
up  to — determining — both  its  invention  and  construction, 
and  then  its  operation. 

In  this  broad  view  we  see  that  any  tool  or  machine  is 
but  an  addition  lo  man's  organism,  an  evolution  of  a  sup- 
plementary part,  organ  or  system.  A  pick  and  shovel  are 
but  an  evolution  of  the  finger-nail  and  hand  ;  a  knife,  of 
the  incisor  teeth,  a  flouring  mill,  of  the  molars  ;  a  micro- 
scope or  a  telescope,  but  a  supplementary  organ  of  sight, 
the  telephone,  an  evolution  of  the  organ  of  hearing,  etc. 
But,  says  the  objector,  these  tools  and  machines  are  pro- 
ducts of  man's  free  will  and  intelligence,  while  his  bodi- 
ly organs  are  involuntary  productions  of  the  vital  princi- 
ple. But  this  is  another  narrow  view.  Granting:,  for  the 
present,  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  "the  vital  principle," 
in  a  broader  view  we  see  that  the  machine  is  equally  a 
production  of  "the  vital  principle,"  for  it  first  produced 
the  brain  and  hand  that  produced  the  machine.  We  do 
not  sa3^  thai  the  square,  saw  and  hammer  builds  a  house  ; 
we  go  back  of  them  one  step,  but  the  physicist  stops  not 
at  one  step — nor  two,  nor  a  million  ;  his  broad  view  shows 
the  house  to  be  the  production  of  an  infinite  series  of  an- 
tecedent causes.  So  the  "man-made  machine  "  is  only 
man-made  in  a  narrow  sense,  and  the  so-called  vital  prin- 
ciple is  itself  onl3^  a  proximate  cause,  an  effect  of  antece- 
dent causes. 

Do  vou  sav  that  a  machine  cannot  be  devised  and  con- 


134  A   FUTURE   LIFE? 

structed  without  the  intervention  of  a  ''free  will  and  in- 
tellig-ence  ?"  But  can  this  boasted  "  free  will  and  intelli- 
g-ence  "  devise,  adapt  means  to  ends  and  construct  a  brain 
that  can  perform  purposive  acts  ?  Why,  skilled  biologists 
have  so  far  failed  to  produce,  by  their  "free  will  and  in- 
telligence," even  a  sing-le  organic  cell  or  a  pinch  of  proto- 
plasm, much  less  a  brain-machine  capable  of  producing 
the  phenomena  of  "free  will  and  intelligence!"  No, 
apparent  free  will,  intelligence  and  the  human  hand  are 
Nature's  means  to  an  end — her  square,  saw  and  hammer  ! 

§  79. — II^LUSTRATIONS    FROM   INANIMATE   NATURE. 

If  we  admit  that  a  personal,  conscious  intellig-ence  is 
necessary  to  operate  the  machine  ca.lled  the  human  brain, 
we  must  admit  the  same  for  the  heart,  stomach,  liver 
and  other  machines  of  the  system,  for  they  all  do  pur- 
poseful work  ;  and  also  of  all  plants  and  plant  org-ans. 
Yes,  and  in  the  inorganic  world  systematic  work  is  done 
by  nature's  machines.  What  is  the  earth-globe  daily  re- 
volving- upon  its  axis  to  produce  day  and  night,  and  an- 
nuall3^  sweeping-  around  the  sun  with  its  axis  inclined  to 
the  plane  of  its  orbit  to  produce  the  seasons,  but  a  great 
machine  ?  Does  a  spirit  operate  it?  and  when  the  earth 
ceases  to  revolve,  like  the  moon,  and  is  cold  in  death  or 
returned  to  the  disinteg-rated  nebular  condition,  will  that 
"disembodied  spirit  "  continue  in  "a  future  life  ?  " 

Another  example  from  inanimate  nature  :  The  heat  of 
the  sun  evaporates  the  water  of  the  ocean,  which  is  then 
absorbed  by  the  atmosphere  above  it ;  the  globular  form 
of  the  earth  and  the  variations  of  temperature  with  the 
chang-e  of  the  seasons,  caused  by  the  inclination  of  the 
earth's  axis  to  the  plane  of  its  orbit  while  encircling  the 
sun,  produces  such  extensive  movements  of  the  air  as  to 


FROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OF  SCIENCE       135 

carry  the  vapor  over  the  land  where  contact  with  cold  cur- 
rents condenses  it  and  then  it  falls  as  rain  to  the  g^round, 
for  the  "  purpose"  of  irrig-ating"  veg-etation  ;  channels  are 
provided,  having-  a  downward  slope  to  the  ocean,  so  that 
the  water  ma}^  be  returned  to  again  be  evaporated^  This 
is  a  grand  irrigfating  plant — means  wonderfully  adapted 
to  ends,  apparently  purposively — ingenious,  complicated 
machine  in  constant  operation  !  Does  an  intelligent  per- 
sonality operate  it  ?  and  when  this  material  machine  is 
worn  out,  or  dies,  will  its  spirit  g-raduate  into  a  "higher 
future  life"  ?    If  so,  the  pagan's  rain-god  is  no  myth  ! 

But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  question  of  a  fu- 
ture life  of  man  ?     Let  us  see. 


§80. 


-THE    CONCI.USION   FROM    FACTS   OF   PHYSICS- 


If  the  human  body  is  a  machine,  or  a  system  of  corre- 
lated machines,  as  believers  in  a  future  life  affirm  and 
non-believers  generall)^  do  not  deny,  from  the  facts  that 
such  machine  operates  because  of  the  laws  of  the  persis- 
tence—  indestructibility  and  uncreatability — of  motion 
and  the  correlation  and  transmutability  of  the  modes  of 
motion,  as  a  link  in  an  infinite  chain — series — of  causes 
and  effects,  not,  from  any  uncaused  cause — force,  mind, 
spirit  or  soul  entit}^ — within,  behind  or  over  it,  it  follows 
that  there  is  absolutely  nothing-  of  this  machine  except 
matter  in  motion  in  the  modes  we  call  life  and  mind,  and 
that  when  this  machine  dies  its  peculiar  modes  of  motion 
are  transmuted  into  other  modes,  and  so  as  vital  and 
mental  modes  wholly  cease. 

From  the  standpoint  of  physics,  therefore,  we  can  see 
no  evidence  that  the  phenomena  of  the  human  brain,  or, 
strictly  speaking,  human  organism  (brain  and  bod}^  be- 
ing interdependent),  which  we  call  the  mind  and  the  per- 


136  A   FUTURE   LIFE? 

sonality,  continue  after  the  disintegration  of  the  body. 
At  the  present  stag-e  of  this  branch  of  science,  there  are  no 
known  facts  or  principles  that  indicate  that  such  a  future 
life  is  probable  or  even  possible  ;  but  physics,  like  other 
natural  sciences,  is  in  a  state  of  active  evolution,  and  it 
would  be  only  presumption  to  say  that  facts  and  principles 
of  physics  may  not  yet  be  discovered  that  would  reverse 
this  view,  and  equally  presumptions  to  assume  that  such 
will  be  the  case.  We  must  accept  it  at  present  in  its  pres- 
ent status,  not  as  we  imagine  it  may  be  in  the  future. 

Part  II. — From  the  Chemical  Point  of  View. 

After  discussing  so  fully  the  relations  of  physics  to  the 
question  of  a  post  mortem  life,  I  need  but  remark  briefly 
on  the  chemical  aspect,  the  two  sciences  being  so  closely 
related  to  each  other. 

§  81. — CHEMICAL   CONSTITUENCY. 

All  bodies  in  nature,  organic  or  inorganic,  living  or 
non-living,  of  which  our  senses  take  cognizance,  upon 
careful  analysis  are  found  to  be  constituted  of  one  or  more 
substances  which  are  considered  to  be  "  simple  elements" 
because  chemists,  in  a  vast  amount  of  experimentation 
and  critical  observation,  have  never  been  able  to  analyze 
them — separate  them  into  even  two  components — nor  ob- 
serve their  formation  by  a  union  of  other  substances. 
Of  such  are  oxygen,  h3^drogen,  carbon,  calcium,  silver, 
gold,  etc.  Compound  bodies  are  composed  of  these  "ele- 
ments" combined  in  one  of  three  ways:  mechanical  mix- 
ture, as  the  air  ;  chemical  combination,  as  water  ;  and 
organic  growth,  as  living  tissues  of  plants  and  animals. 
There  is,  however,  no  definite  line  of  distinction  between 
one  of  these  ways  and  another,  just  as  the  line  between 
plant  and  animal   life  is  indefinite.     Though  generally 


PROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OF  SCIENCE      137 

the  three  methods  are  plainly  distinct,  in  some  cases  they 
seem  to  merge  by  imperceptible  gradation. 

§82. — THE    LAW   OF   CHANGE. 

One  great,  universal  fact  relating  to  the  constituency 
of  material  bodies  (inorganic  as  well  as  organic)  is,  that 
they  are  all  unstable — subject  to  disintegration  ;  and  an- 
other great  universal  fact  is,  that,  after  disintegration  of 
any  body  of  matter,  the  separated  particles  or  elements 
re-integrate  to  constitute  other  bodies^  more  or  less  endur- 
ing but  also  unstable.  This  disintegration  and  re-inte- 
gration is  action  under  the  great  Law  of  Change,  and  on 
this  depends  the  phenomena  of  the  universe,  from  the  ro- 
tation and  revolution  of  the  heavenly  bodies  to  the  trans- 
mutation of  forms  of  bodies  and  modes  of  motion.  By 
this  great  law  of  change  suns  and  planetary  systems  are 
constructed  from  nebulous  matter — disintegrated  matter 
of  preceding  suns  and  planetary  systems — and  by  it  they 
are  disintegrated  into  nebulous  matter,  crude  material  for 
the  building  of  succeeding  suns  and  systems — '*  world 
without  end  !  "  As  well,  by  this  law  of  nature  inorganic 
matter  yields  its  non-living  forms  and  becomes  organic, 
living  plants,  and  these  yield  up  their  elements  for  use 
in  building  living  animal  tissues  ;  and  by  it  the  animal 
tissues,  including  those  of  man,  are  disintegrated  to  form 
inorganic  food  for  plants,  and  so  round  and  round  goes 
on  the  birth,  life,  death,  disintegration  and  resurrection 
of  matter  here  on  earth,  and  every  day  is  a  "day  of  judg- 
ment— i.  e.,  a  day  of  readjustment. 

No,  our  bodies  do  not  only  become  food  for  grass  when 
we  breathe  out  the  last  breath,  but  literally  "in  the  midst 
of  life  we  are  in  death,"  for  with  the  first  expiration  of 
the  new-born  infant  goes  out  of  its  body  a  quantity  of 


138  A   FUTURE  UPE  ? 

carbon  that  a  moment  before  was  an  indispensable  con- 
tituent  of  its  living-  body;  and  that  carbon  has  not  only 
been  disintegrated  from  tissue  or  cell  combination,  but  it 
has  been  re-integ^rated  by  a  chemical  compact  with  oxy- 
g-en  and  formed  carbonic  acid,  a  g"as  which  mingles  with 
the  air ;  away  it  floats,  like  a  "departed  spirit,"  which  it 
truly  and  literall}^  is,  until  it  comes  in  contact  with  a  blade 
of  grass  or  leaf  of  a  tree,  when  it  is  disinteg-rated  and 
the  carbon  is  made  a  constituent  of  plant  tissue,  which 
later  is  eaten  by  beast  or  man — literally  re-incarnated  ! 
Taking-  the  g-reat,  pre-eminently  basic  chemical  element 
of  all  living-  beings,  carbon,  as  the  "soul,"  we  have  a 
real,  scientific  "re-incarnation,"  "  transmigration  of  the 
soul,"  "reg-eneration"or  "new  birth,"  "resurrection," etc. 
May  it  not  be  that  these  theolog-ical  mysteries  are,  after 
all,  vague  and  dreamy  subjective  recognition  of  the  g-reat 
facts  of  nature  now  being-  objectified  by  inductive  science? 
As  in  literature — poetry  and  fiction — and  in  art,  there  is 
always  necessaril)^  a  basis  of  elemental  facts,  so  in  meta- 
physical and  theological  systems  there  must  necessarily 
be  basic  facts  even  though  but  dimly  perceived,  for  man 
is  not  a  creator — he  cannot  "make  something  out  of  no- 
thing- " — not  even  a  fallacious  theory  or  a  false  doctrine. 

Briefly,  it  is  a  well-esta':)lished  fact  that  all  chemically 
complex  bodies,  of  two  or  more  elements,  are  unstable  and 
under  varying-  environment  disintegrate  and  enter  into 
new  combinations,  forming;  new  bodies  of  matter  ;  and  as 
a  general  principle,  the  more  complex  the  agg-regation 
the  more  unstable  it  i§,  and  organic  compounds  being- ex- 
ceeding-ly  complex  are  very  unstable  ;  and  hence  the  ver3^ 
life  activity  itself  is  but  an  incessant  and  rapid  chemical 
decomposition  and  recomposition  of  tissue.  The  human 
body,  then,    as  an  individuality^  during  life  is  reall3^   a 


PROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OP  SCIENCE      139 

ligfhtningf-like  succession  of  individualities,  just  as  the 
human  species  as  a  whole  during"  its  entire  race  existence 
is  a  slower  succession  of  these  complex  individualities, 
of  an  averag-e  duration,  say,  of  thirty  years. 

The  sum  of  the  activities  of  the  grand  man,  humanity, 
correspond  exactly  to  the  chemical  and  physical  motions 
inherent  in  and  inseparable  from  its  constituents — per- 
sons—and the  sum  of  the  activities  of  each  of  these  race- 
constituents  (persons)  corresponds  exactly  to  the  inherent 
chemical  and' physical  motions  or  activities  of  its  organs, 
cells,  corpuscles,  molecules  and  atoms ;  and  the  sum  of 
the  activities  of  the  grand  man — the  race — is  no  less  and 
no  more  a  "soul"  capable  of  separation  from  and  exist- 
ence independent. of  its  chemical  constituents  than  is  that 
of  the  individual  or  person.  Indeed,  there  is  today  in 
London,  Eng.,  a  sect  called  the  "Church  of  Humanity  " 
which  holds  as  a  creedal  doctrine  that  the  race  has  a  soul, 
and  its  members  pray  to  that  race  soul  as  a  superior  per- 
sonal being— "the  true  and  living  God"! 

§83. —  MAN   CHIEFLY   WATER. 

The  human  body,  apparently  so  solid,  is  chiefly  water, 
consisting  of  about  7  pounds  of  water  to  every  3  pounds 
of  solid  material  ;  that  is,  about  70  per  cent  water.  At 
the  same  temperature  that  water  is  a  liquid,  its  compo- 
ents,  oxygen  and  hydrogen,  when  not  chemically  united 
are  both  gases  ;  so  that  were  the  water  in  a  man's  body 
to  be  suddenly  disintegrated,  he  would  immediately  be- 
come 70  per  cent  g'as.  And  I  am  here  tempted  to  say, 
by  way  of  diversion,  that,  apparentl3%  this  most  dire  ca- 
lamit)^  often  occurs! — politicians  and  preachers  being 
especially  predisposed  to  the  disease! 

Water  is  the  only  inorganic  substance  which  animals, 
including"  man,  directly  assimilate  ;  all  other  elements  of 


140  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

nutrition — substances  that  enter  into  the  construction  of 
the  living"  tissues — must  first  be  raised  by  plant  life  from 
the  domain  of  inorg-anic  matter  up  into  the  domain  of  or- 
ganic matter.  Air  is  no  exception  to  this,  for  it  or  its 
components,  oxygen  and  nitrogen,  do  not  become  any 
part  of  living  tissue  ;  we  breathe  in  order  that  the  oxy- 
gen of  the  air  may  chemically  unite  with  the  carbon  in 
the  venous  blood  that  it  may  be,  in  the  gaseous  state  (as 
carbonic  acid  gas),  readily  eliminated  from  the  living 
system.  The  "spirit"  (etymologically,  the  breath,)  of 
man,  which  it  is  said  "God  breathed  into  his  nostrils"  to 
make  him  "a  living  soul,"  and  which  "ghost"  man  "gives 
up"  forty  times  every  minute  while  he  lives,  is,  then,  on- 
ly a  vehicle  of  ph3^siological  sewage. 

§  84.— CHEMISTRY   OF   THK    PI.ASMA. 

The  essential  substance  of  all  living  things,  vegetable 
and  animal,  called  the  flasma  is  constituted  of  chemical 
elements,  but  combined  in  proportions  never  found  in  in- 
organic nature,  and,  so  far,  beyond  the  skill  of  chemists 
to  effect  experimentally.  This  plasma  varies  somewhat 
under  different  conditions,  but  in  general  the  plasmic 
substances  consist  of  what  are  called  "the  five  organo- 
genetic  elements,"  combined  in  about  these  proportions 
by  weight  :  Carbon,  51  to  54  per  cent ;  Oxygen,  21  to  23 
per  cent ;  Nitrogen,  15  to  17  per  cent ;  Hydrogen,  6  to  7 
per  cent ;  Sulphur,  1  to  2  per  cent. 

These  eleraentals  uncombined  are,  solids,  two — C.  and 
S.;  gases,  three — O.,  N.  and  H.  ;  no  liquids.  Yet  the 
product  of  the  combining  process,  plasma,  is  neither  a 
solid  nor  a  gas,  but  a  semi-liquid  or  jelly-like  substance, 
of  which  the  white  of  an  egg-  is  a  good  example.  This 
change  of  state  resulting  from  the  combination,  points 


FROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OF  SCIENCE      141 

directl}"  to  the  fact  that  plasma  is  not  a  mere  mechanical 
mixture  of  the  five  elements,  but  a  product  of  chemical 
combination.  That  it  is  not  a  product  of  a  "vital  force" 
siii generis^  but  chemic,  is  shown  b}^  the  fact  that  this 
chang-e  of  state  as  a  result  of  union  is  a  phenomenon  com- 
mon in  inorgfanic  combinations,  as  is  illustrated  by  the 
chemical  combination  of  the  two  g-ases,  oxyg-en  and  hy- 
drogen, resulting-  in  the  formation  of  the  liquid,  water. 

Other  chemical  elements  than  the  five  organogenetic 
elements  of  plasma  enter  into  the  formation  of  living  tis- 
sues, as  calcium,  phosphorus,  etc.,  but  they  may  be  con- 
sidered as  auxiliaries  of  the  plasmic  substance,  important 
but  not  essential  to  life  action. 

§  85. — THK   VERDICT   OF   CHEMISTRY. 

Do  the  facts  and  principles  of  chemistry  above  consid- 
ered, or  any  others  known  to  chemists,  prove  that  there 
is  any  "spirit"  or  "soul" entity  or  personality  connected 
in  any  wa3^,  either  as  cause  or  modifjung  influence  affect- 
ing the  chemical  actions  or  reactions,  with  the  material 
structure  of  plant,  brute  or  human  ?  No.  All  the  struct- 
ural changes  within  living  organisms  are  accounted  for 
upon  the  general  principles  of  chemical  action  in  the  do- 
main of  inorganic  matter,  modified  only  by  the  peculiar 
conditions  essential  to  the  manifestation  of  life.  Does  or- 
ganic chemistry  confirm  the  theory  that  "nothing  is  ever 
destroyed,  therefore  man  must  be  immortal"?  Not  at 
all  ;  but  on  the  contrary  chemistry  proves  that  no  body 
of  matter  constituted  of  two  or  more  indivisible  atoms  is 
stable,  but  finite  in  duration  under  the  law  of  change. 

To  illustrate  :  I  am  now  before  a  case  of  type  ;  let  each 
letter  represent  an  atom  of  a  chemical  element.  I  pick 
up  one  and  then  another  and  unite  thetn  so  as  to  spell  the 


142  A  FUTURE  IJFE  ? 

words  on  this  pag-e  ;  among*  them  is,  say,  the  word  god, 
but  after  printing-  the  page  I  disintegrate  the  word  b)^ 
distributing  the  type  back  into  the  case.  The  word  god 
as  a  combination  of  type-letters  has  been  destroyed.  I 
then  set  another  page  from  the  same  case  of  type,  and  in 
doing  so  I  pick  up  identically  the  same  t3^pes  I  had  used 
in  the  word  god,  but  arrange  them  differently  and  so  as 
to  spell  dog  ;  again  I  use  the  same  types  but  add  another 
o  and  produce  the  word  g"ood.  So  things  as  we  know 
them  in  composite  bodies  of  matter,  inorganic  or  organic, 
are  not  only  destructible,  but  of  necessity  they  7nust  be  de- 
stroyed that  others  may  be  formed  from  their  elements. 
Let  Ithis  destruction  in  nature  cease,  and  the  universe 
would  stand  still — be  an  infinite  petrification. 

Yes,  we  die,  as  chemistry  demonstrates,  not  that  we 
may  live  again,  but  that  others  vd^y  live. 

Does  chemical  science  afford  any  facts  or  principles  in 
support  of  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  either  b)^  resur- 
rection of  the  body  or  the  disembodiment  of  an  immortal 
spirit,  or  b}^  re-embodiment  of  a  disembodied  soul  ?  Not 
one.  Chemistry  takes  absolutely  no  cog^nizance  of  any- 
thing that  even  suggests  the  indestructibility  of  anything: 
but  the  elementary  atom,  or  the  probability  or  possibility 
of  a  future  life  after  final  death  of  the  bod)^ 

Part  III.—  From  the  Physiological  Point  of  Viiew. 

That  branch  of  biological  science  which  relates  to  the 
actions  peculiar  to  the  various  anatomical  organs,  tissues 
and  cells  of  living  plants  and  animals,  physiology,  may 
at  first  sight  appear  irrelevant  to  the  question  of  a  post 
mortem  life,  but  I  think  it  can  be  shown  to  embrace  very 
important  facts  and  principles  bearing  strongly  upon 
the  subject.     Let  us  see. 


PROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OF  SCIENCE      143 

§  86. — NATURE   OF   PHYSIOLOGICAL   FUNCTION. 

Each  org-an,  tissue  and  cell  of  a  living"  being-  is  evi- 
dently adapted,  more  or  less  perfectly,  to  the  performance 
of  work  for  the  well-being  and  perpetuation  of  itself,  the 
individual  (as  a  co-operative  community),  and  the  race 
or  species  (a  more  comprehensive  co-operative  commu- 
nity whose  units  are  the  aforesaid  minor  communities,  the 
individuals).  No  matter  how  much  we  differ  as  to  what 
is  the  cause  of  this  adaptation,  or  as  to  its  being  the  re- 
sult of  intelligent  design,  it  exists  apparently  as  purpo- 
sive effort.  Take,  for  instance,  the  leaves  on  a  tree  :  to- 
g^ether  with  one  another  and  the  trunk,  branches,  roots, 
etc.,  they  constitute  a  co-operative  community,  and  the 
interdependence  of  the  leaf,  trunk  and  root  is  so  g-reat 
that  no  one  of  these  members  can  long  continue  to  live 
without  the  co-operative  work  of  all  the  others.  The  leaf 
is  so  constructed  that  it  is  adapted  to  its  atmospheric 
environment,  the  light  of  the  sun,  constituents,  contents 
and  movement  of  the  air,  apparently,  at  least,  by  intelli- 
gent, purposive  design,  so  that  it  "works"  not  only  to 
build  and  maintain  its  own  individuality  but  also  that  of 
the  entire  tree.  In  fact  a  real  altruism  seems  to  exist, 
for  the  root  seems  to  work  chiefly  in  collecting-  materials 
from  the  soil  for  use  in  constructing  the  trunk  and  the 
leaves;  the  leaves  seem  chiefly  concerned  in  extracting- 
carbon  from  the  air  for  the  building  of  the  trunk  and  the 
roots,  and  the  chief  uses  of  the  trunk  seems  to  be  to  sup- 
port the  leaves  high  in  the  air  and  sunlight  and  connect 
the  leaf  and  the  root  with  each  other  to  make  their  co- 
operation possible  and  eminently  practicable.  Then  there 
is  the  flower  and  the  seed :  the  leaf,  root  and  trunk  unite 
in  the  work,  apparently  as  the  chief  purpose  of  their  ex- 


144  A  FUTURE  UFE? 

istence,  to  produce  flowers  and  seeds ;  the  flower  is  de- 
voted almost  entirely  to  the  perfecting:  of  the  seed,  and 
this  reciprocates  by  devoting-  its  work  to  the  starting-  of  a 
new  community-individual  tree  in  order  that  the  commu- 
nity-species may  continue  and  increase. 

And  so  with  all  living  things  throughout  nature. 

§  87. — PHYSIOLOGICAI.    AUTOMATISM. 

The  popular  belief  that  matter  is  "dead,"  inert,  except 
when  impelled  to  move  or  act  by  an  invisible,  mysterious 
"  force"  entity  or  "spirit"  entity  within,  "behind  "or 
"back  of  "  it,  is  a  fallacy  arising  from  a  misconception  of 
the  nature  of  cause  and  of  motion.  The  true  conception 
is  that  matter  is  never  inert,  and  is  always  in  motion  ; 
that  motion  cannot  be  destroyed,  suspended  or  "diffused 
in  vacant  space";  and  motion  cannot  be  initiated  or  cre- 
ated. What  appears  to  be  a  cessation  of  motion  or  the 
beginning  of  motion  is  only  the  cessation  or  the  begin- 
ning of  a  rnode  at  the  time  of  a  transmutation  from  one 
mode  into  another.  Hence  physiological  action  is  not 
caused  by  any  "vital  force"  entity,  but  is  a  mode  of  mo- 
tion resulting  from  a  transmutation  of  the  physical  and 
chemical  modes  in  which  the  living  matter  moved  before 
it  became  living  matter,  while  as  yet  inorganic.  This 
transmutation  occurs  because  of  changed  conditions,  just 
as  a  man  apparently  voluntarily  changes  his  modes(meth- 
ods)  of  activity  under  different  conditions  —'"suits  his 
action  to  the  circumstances,"  as  he  says. 

Living  cells,  tissues  and  organs  (including  the  human 
brain),  therefore,  perform  their  functions  as  they  do  sim- 
ply because  the  matter  of  which  they  are  composed  cannoi 
cease  to  act  and  so  chang-es  its  modes  of  action  into  physi- 
ological  functioning  in   conformity   with  the  conditions 


FROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OF  SCIENCE      145 

and  its  adaptation  to  them.  No  mysterious  invisible  be- 
ing* or  vital  force  is  needed  to  "cause"  them  to  act,  or  to 
be  hypothecated  to  account  for  the  performance  of  their 
proper  functions. 

§  88. — THE    PHYSIOI.OGICAI,   UI.TIMATE. 

A  physiological  function,  then,  of  any  org-an,  tissue  or 
cell,  is  that  special  work  it  is  adapted  to  do,  and  does 
perform  by  virtue  of  its  particular  organization  and  influ- 
ence of  heredity  and  environment ;  and  it  may  be  stated 
concisely,  as  a  log-ical  generalization  of  the  known  facts  of 
comparative  physiolog-y,  as  a  biologfical  principle  or  nat- 
ual  law  of  life,  that  the  object  of  all  functional  activity  is 
the  constricction  and  -preservation^  first,  of  the  acting*  or- 
gan, tissue  or  cell ;  second,  of  the  individual  of  which  it 
is  an  anatomical  member ;  and  third,  of  the  species — in 
procreation  and  care  of  offspring*.  And  another  g-ener- 
alization  of  much  sig*nificance  in  connection  with  this  is 
thus  formulated  by  Professor  Ernst  Haeckel  in  his  Fif- 
teenth Thesis  :  "All  vital  activities — inclusive  of  the  psy- 
chical or 'soul' functions — take  place  according*  to  the 
laws  of  physics  and  chemistr3%"  as  I  have  stated  in  §  85. 
And  a  third  great  physiolog'ical  generalization  equally 
well  founded  on  the  known  facts,  is  this:  All  functional 
activity — including  the  consciousness  of  pain  and  pleas- 
ure, suffering  of  sorrow  and  enjoyment  of  happiness,  and 
the  horror  of  death  and  desire  to  live,  and  even  the  hope  of 
a  contimced  existence  after  death — is  adapted  to  and  nor- 
mally results  in  the  production  and  preservation  of  life 
here  on  earth  as  we  objectively  know  it,  so  that  we  are 
justifiable  in  concluding  that  the  ultimate  end  of  all  life 
activity — physiological  function — including  thought,  is 
bodily  life  :  a  progression  by  revolutions,  as  in  all  other 


146  A   FUTURE  LIFE? 

departments  of  nature. 

§  89. — DOES   THE   BRAIN   THINK  ? 

It  has  been  said  that  the  brain  does  not  and  cannot  of 
itself  think  ;  "the  mind  or  spirit  uses  the  brain  as  a  me- 
dium for  the  manifestation  of  its  thoug-ht ;  it  is  prepos- 
terous to  say  that  mere  matter  can  think  ;  the  brain  is 
merely  a  convenient  but  not  indispensable  tool  of  mind 
or  spirit."  So  say  the  believers  in  human  dualism.  Let 
us  step  by  step  throug^h  comparison  approach  the  ques- 
tion, Is  thinking-  a  physiolog-ical  function  of  the  cerebral 
brain — thoug"ht  a  result  of  brain  functioning-? 

The  result  of  muscular  contraction  is  bodily  movement ; 
the  result  of  salivary  and  g-astric  secretion  is  dig-estion  of 
food;  the  result  of  the  alternate  expansion  and  contrac- 
tion of  the  chest  is  respiration,  and  of  that,  decarboniza- 
tion  of  the  blood  ;  the  result  of  the  g-landular  action  of 
the  liver  is  the  removal  of  deleterious  waste  matter  from 
the  blood  and  making:  of  it  a  useful  intestinal  lubricant ; 
the  result  of  the  muscular  action  of  the  heart  and  arteries 
is  the  circulation  of  the  blood  ;  the  result  of  the  contrac- 
tion and  expansion  of  the  pores  of  the  skin  by  variations 
of  temperature  is  the  maintainance  of  an  even  and  proper 
warmth  of  the  body ;  the  result  of  the  action  of  the  iris  of 
the  eye,  bj^  which  the  pupil  is  expanded  and  contracted,  is 
the  reg-ulation  to  some  extent  of  the  amount  of  light  that 
enters  the  eye  ;  the  result  of  the  action  of  the  sensory 
nerves  is  the  merg-ing-  of  sensory  impressions  in  centers 
of  perception  to  form  the  basis  of  consciousness  ;  the  re- 
sult of  the  actions  of  the  spinal  cord,  medulla  and  cere- 
bellum, is  the  regulation  and  unification  of  the  various 
physiological  activities  of  the  entire  S3^stem.  And  the 
physiologist  conceives  of  all  these  results  being-  broug-ht 


PROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OF  SCIENCE      147 

about  by  the  action  of  the  organs  named,  not  by  the  ac- 
tion of  invisible,  mysterious,  immaterial  beings  through 
them  as  negative  mediums  or  by  them  as  instruments. 

But  let  us  take  one  more  step :  the  result  of  the  action 
of  the  cerebrum  is — what  ?  Does  Nature  here  reverse 
herself,  and  after  constructing"  a  system  of  co-operating, 
automatic  organs,  build  one  more  of  far  greater  excel- 
lence, placed  like  an  autocrat  on  a  throne  over  them,  and 
debase  it  to  the  position  of  a  mere  "convenient"  but  "not 
indispensable"  tool  of  a  being  hidden,  like  the  manipu- 
lator of  Punch  and  Judy,  "behind"  it?  Or  is  Nature 
consistent,  so  that,  as  with  the  other  organs,  we  may  say 
that  the  cerebral  brain  itself  acts  automatically  to  bring 
about  a  result  for  the  well-being  of  itself  and  all  the  other 
co-operating  members  of  the  community  constituting  the 
individual,  and  so  also  of  society  and  the  species  ?  Then, 
shall  I  continue  the  list  in  normal  order  and  say  :  the 
result  of  the  action  (thinking)  of  the  cerebrum  is  thought  ? 
That  it  is  a  very  complex  organ,  and  receives  impressions 
through  the  organs  of  sense  which  it  combines  and  trans- 
mutes into  not  only  intellectual  thought,  but  also  senti- 
ment and  emotion?  And  these — are  they  "things,"  or 
are  they  not  really  modes  of  motion,  as  are  sound,  heat, 
light,  electricity  and  magnetism  ?  If  so,  they  are  effects 
of  complex  causes  liable  to,  and  by  the  natural  laws  of 
correlation  and  change  surely  destined  to,  dissolution  ? 
And  with  destruction  of  the  cause,  the  efifect  ceases  to  be 
produced.  No  cerebral  brain,  no  functions  of  emotion, 
sentiment  or  thought.  Just  as,  no  eyes,  no  seeing;  no 
feet,  no  walking;  no  wings,  no  flying;  no  glands,  no 
secretions;  no  sensory  nerves,  no  feeling;  no  sensory 
unifying  center,  no  consciousness — are  all  physiological 
truisms,  so,  to  the   unprejudiced  mind,  no  cerebrum,  no 


148  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

thoug-ht,  emotion  or  sentiment,  is  also  a  physiolog-ical 
truism;  and  without  these,  there  is  no  personality. 

It  has  been  said  by  way  objection  to  the  physiological 
principle  that  the  several  anatomical  members  each  acts 
automatically  in  and  of  itself,  by  virtue  of  the  potency  of 
the  molecular  and  other  motions  of  its  constituents  mod- 
ified by  their  peculiar  relations  to  one  another  in  the  or- 
ganism and  to  their  external  environment,  that  the  evi- 
dent purposive  adaptation  of  means  to  ends  in  the  struc- 
ture and  functions  of  these  parts  necessarily  implies  the 
existence  of  an  intellig-ent  designer  of  them. 

Though  this  is  a  mooted  question,  I  will  here  assume 
that  such  a  designing  intelligence  does  exist ;  but  I  reply 
that  such  entelligence  must  of  necessity  itself  be  a  com- 
plex organization  of  the  primary  elements  of  intelligence 
because  the  relative  position  in  the  scale  is  based  on  the 
principle  that  the  "higher"  the  living  being  the  more 
complex  and  intricate  its  constituency  and  viceversa^  and 
as  the  creator  must  be  superior  to  (higher  than)  its  crea- 
tion, this  designer  must  be  even  more  complex  than  the 
material  organism,  and  therefore  destined  by  the  laws  of 
correlation  and  change  to  dissolution — death. 

All  of  the  known  physiological  facts  support  the  gen- 
eralization that  all  of  the  phenomena  of  life,  from  those 
of  a  single  cell  to  those  of  the  human  cerebrum,  are  de- 
termined by  the  adaptation  of  structure  to  its  environ- 
ment, and  that  when  that  adaptation  cannot  be  main- 
tained, the  phenomena  all  end — which  is  final  death. 

If  the  destruction  of  the  cerebral  brain  is  inevitably  fol- 
lowed b)^  annihilation  of  the  consciousness  and  the  per- 
sonality, as  physiological  science  certainl}^  teaches  us, 
a  post  mortem  future  life  would  be  impossible. 


FROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OP  SCIENCE      149 

Part  IV. — From  the  Psychological  Point  of  View. 
§  90. — WHAT   IS    PSYCHOLOGY  ? 

PSYCHOLOGY  defined  etymologfically  :  a  discourse 
upon  the  butterfly  ! — from  the  Greek  logos^  word  or 
discourse,  and  fsyche^  a  butterfl3\  Herein  is  disclosed 
the  Greek  (and  incidentally  the  New  Testament)  concep- 
tion of  the  nature  of  the  supposed  human  soul,  and  also 
the  fallacy  of  the  analogical  reasoning-  upon  which  the 
doctrines  of  its  existence  and  its  resurrection  were,  in  a 
large  degree,  founded  and  defended.  The  man  was  lik- 
ened to  the  larva  (*'worm  of  the  dust")  of  the  butterfly 
or  anj"  moth  :  his  body  in  the  grave  was  likened  to  the 
chrysalis  of  the  butterfly  in  winter  awaiting  its  resurrec- 
tion in  the  Spring ;  the  soul  of  man  was  likened  to  the 
mature  butterfly,  resurrected  as  a  beautiful  winged  being 
and  perfectly  happy  in  its  care-free  and  serene  baskings 
in  the  glorious  sunshine  of  summer — **  in  the  light  of  the 
countenance  of  the  Lord  of  heaven,"  the  sun  !  Beautiful 
as  poetic  fancy;  but  as  science  or  philosophy,  it  is  fatally 
defective,  for  the  larva  does  not  die  when  it  enters  its 
winter  tomb  to  await  as  a  living  chrysalis  its  resurrection 
at  *'the  end  of  the  world  "  (year).  The  larva  that  actu- 
ally dies,  as  man  dies,  never  becomes  a  chrysalis,  much 
less  a  butterfly  ;  and  the  chrj^salis  that  dies  and  decays 
as  a  man's  body  disintegates  in  the  grave  never  becomes 
a  butterfly. 

There  is,  however,  real  analogy  between  the  life  of  a 
man  and  that  of  a  butterfly,  but  it  contradicts  the  doc- 
trine of  the  soul  and  its  survival  of  bodily  death.  Man  as 
a  foetus — a  child  before  birth — is  in  a  stage  analogous  to 
the  larval  and  chrysalic  stages  ;  when  he  reaches  the  ad- 


150  A   FUTURE  LIFE? 

ult  age  he  has  reached  the  butterfly  stagfe,  before  death, 
not  after  it — the  mature  stage  in  which  both  butterfly  and 
man  perform  their  reproductive  functiotis,  after  which 
man  and  the  butterfly  alike  prosaically  and  actually  die  ! 

But  the  Greek  words  ^53'<://^  and  logos  have,  in  the  evo- 
lution of  human  speech,  become  amalgfamated  and  modi- 
fied so  as  to  form  the  English  word  pschology,  with  the 
modern  meaning-  of  science  of  fnind.  The  only  defect  I 
can  see  in  this  definition  is  that  it  is  premature — the  sci- 
ence of  mind  is  as  yet  only  in  the  chrysalis  state.  For 
this  reason  I  give  little  credence,  on  the  one  hand  or  on 
the  other,  to  the  testimony  of  the  "old"  or  "orthodox" 
psychology.  But  some  progress  is  being  made  in  mind- 
investigation,  and  the  real  scientists  have  arrived  at  the 
truth  that  psychology  is  not  a  unique,  independent  gen- 
eral or  generic  science,  but  a  sub-science — only  a  branch 
of  physiology.  As  such,  I  have  already  quite  fully  dis- 
cussed its  bearings  on  the  question  of  a  future  life  in  the 
sections  criticising  Thomson  Jay  Hudson's  hypotheses, 
those  under  head  of  "The  Physiological  View,"  and  in- 
cidentally in  other  sections  here  and  there.  Hence,  little 
need  be  said  here  of  the  psychological  view  ;  but  I  think 
there  are  yet  a  few  points  deserving  of  attention. 

§91. — THE   SUBSTANCE    OF   MIND   OR  "sOUL." 

Elsewhere  in  these  papers  I  have  maintained  that  the 
"substance"  (that  which  stands  under)  all  the  phenom- 
ena of  the  universe  is  tnatter  in  motion;  and  that  no  spir- 
it, energy  or  force  entity  is  needed  to  "cause"  the  activ- 
ity of  matter,  organic  or  inorganic,  because  its  activity 
is  incessant — can  be  neither  initiated  (created)  nor  anni- 
hilated— the  apparent  beginning  and  ending  of  activit}^ 
being  in  reality  transmutations  of  the  modes  of  ^notion 


FROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OF  SCIENCE      151 

from  one  into  another.  Mind  is  a  phenomenon  of  nature, 
a  part  or  mode  of  the  cosmic  activity;  therefore,  under 
my  definition  of  the  substance  of  the  cosmos  or  universe, 
the  substance  of  mind  (or  "soul")  is  matter  in  motion. — 
Mind  is  a  mode  of  activit}"  resulting-  from  a  transmuta- 
tion from  other  antecedent  modes  and  disappearing  by 
transmutation  into  other  succeeding-  modes  of  activity. 
Activity  in  the  ag-gregate  never  beg-ins  or  ends  ;  but  the 
modes  of  activity  do  constanth"  begin  and  end,  constitut- 
ing the  varied  phenomena  of  nature.  Mind,  or  soul,  is 
a  mode  of  activity,  and  has  beginning  and  ending — be- 
gins at  transmutation  from  the  heat,  electricity,  chemic 
and  vital  modes  of  brain  tissue  as  a  result  of  brain-tissue 
disintegration  by  means  of  oxj-g-en,  and  ends  by  trans- 
mutation into  the  various  modes  of  activity  which  are 
the  results  of  desire,  design,  etc.  Hence,  in  this  light, 
it  appears  impossible  that  the  existence  of  individualized 
mind  could  be  eternal,  or  continue  even  a  moment  after 
the  dissolution  of  the  brain  ;  or  that  mind  could  exist  in- 
dependent of  its  *' substance,"  matter  in  motion. 

§  92. — PSYCHIC    REVELATIONS. 

Certain  persons,  forming  an  inconsiderable  exception 
in  the  totality  of  the  race,  have  claimed  special  powers 
of  psychic  discernment  independent  of  the  material  or- 
gans of  the  specialized  senses,  and  of  late  have  assumed 
the  class  cognomen  of  "psychics."  These  psychics  are 
persons  in  whom  the  subjective,  or  reflex,  mentation  is 
abnormally  merged  into  the  objective  mentation.  I  say 
**  abnormall3^"  because  this  merging  of  the  two  modes 
of  mentation  to  a  certain  extent  is  normal  and  common 
to  all  mankind.  For  instance,  take  memory.  You  ob- 
serve a  certain  object  or  occurrence  toda3^  and  for  some 


152  A   FUTURE  LIFE? 

minutes  afterward  you  consciousl)^  keep  in  your  objective 
thought  an  imag-e  of  the  thing  or  the  occurrence  ;  this 
is  purely  objective  or  conscious  memory.  At  length  you 
cease  thinking  of —that  is  consciously  retaining  the  im- 
age of — the  object  or  occurrence,  hut  tomorrow  you  may 
again  form  an  image  of  the  object  or  event,  which  new 
image  is  re-collected  memory — you  will  then  say  "I  recol- 
lect it."  We  cannot  collect  or  re-collect  that  which  no 
longer  exists ;  hence  that  which  we  can  recollect  must 
still  exist — that  is,  the  mental  image  (memory)  of  an  ob- 
ject or  event  exists  subconscionsly  up  to  the  time  we  re- 
collect it.  This  is  subjective  or  subconscious  memory, 
and  is  entirely  a  product  of  the  objective  mind's  im- 
age, not  of  direct  observation — that  is,  of  "suggestion"; 
and  such  subjective  image  or  subconscious  memory  has 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  truth  or  falsity  of  its 
relation  to  objective  reality.  It  never  "goes  back  of  the 
returns"  supplied  to  it  by  the  objective  mentation.  If 
the  original  conscious  image  is  false  to  fact  you  will  re- 
collect a  falsity  from  the  subconscious  memory  when  you 
again  consciously  remember  it.  And  association  of  innu- 
merable subconscious  images  or  memories  results  in  more 
or  less  confusion  or  intermingling  in  the  course  of  time, 
so  that  a  recollection  of  things  or  events  observed  a  long 
time  previously  is  never  quite  true  to  the  original  image; 
we  "get  things  mixed,"  as  we  say  when  with  difficulty 
trying  to  recollect  something  of  the  long  ago.  Even  our 
dreams — subjective  images  formed  while  asleep — often 
become  mingled  or  confused  with  images  that  had  come 
from  objective  observation,  and  we  are  sometimes  unable 
to  decide  whether  a  certain  recollection  is  true  to  fact,  or 
whether  we  "just  dreamed  it." 

Now  for  the   application  :  The  images  re-collected  by 


PROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OP  SCIENCE      153 

the  professed  psychics  or  so-called  seers  are  but  re-collec- 
tions of  subconscious  imag-es  (memories)  origfinally  re- 
ceived by  sug-g:estion  from  the  conscious  thought  of  the 
the  ps3xhic  himself  or  that  of  others.  That  is,  the  psy- 
chic "revelations"  are  but  reflections  of  the  conscious 
opinions,  beliefs  or  theories  of  the  psychic,  or  persons — 
authors,  speakers  or  friends — who  have  made  forcible  im- 
pressions upon  his  subjective  mentation  ;  briefl}^  they  are 
reflex  thoughts,  opinions  and  images  or  mental  pictures. 
I  have  arrived  at  this  conclusion  from  a  pretty  thorough 
study  of  the  writings  of  two  of  the  greatest  of  the  seers  of 
modern  times,  Emanuel  Sweden  bo rg  and  Andrew  Jack- 
son Davis,  confirmed  by  observation  of  lesser  lights  and 
my  own  personal  experience. 

Swedenborg  is  a  wonderful  example  of  reflex  thinking 
from  autosuggestion.  He  was  a  man  of  more  than  ordi- 
nary intellectual  ability,  by  both  nature  and  education  ; 
he  was  a  devout  Christian,  but  his  strong,  educated  intel- 
lect balked  at  the  contradictions,  inconsistencies  and  ab- 
surdities of  the  Bible  and  the  orthodox  Christian  religion, 
and  he  became  a  unique  heretic.  But  for  the  mistake  of 
placing  confidence  in  his  psychic  "visions,"  he  would 
have  been  a  radical  Rationalist.  As  it  was,  the  sugges- 
tions of  early  religious  teaching  and  much  reading  of  the 
Bible  were  mingled  and  confused  with  the  autosugges- 
tions of  his  enlightened  objective  intellect,  resulting  in 
re-collections,  by  an  abnormal  assertiveness  of  his  sub- 
conscious mentation,  in  mongrel  "visions"  which  he  mis- 
takenly accepted  as  "  revelations"  of  spirit-world  reali- 
ties. His  pictures  of  Jesus  as  God,  of  Heaven  and  Hell, 
of  the  Great  Judgment,  etc.,  were  painted  in  the  colors 
of  early  training  mixed  with  the  oil  of  a  great  intellect 
and  applied  with  the  brush  of  a   wonderfully  facile  and 


154  A  FUTURE  LIFE? 

prolific  literary  talent.  And  on  the  sandy  foundation  of 
that  mistake  has  been  erected  a  church — "Church  of  the 
New  Jerusalem,"  a  Christian  sect  of  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  adherents. 

Andrew  Jackson  Davis  was  a  psychic  who  beg"an  when 
an  illiterate  boy  by  abnormally  reflecting-  the  sugges- 
tions of  a  mesmerizer  who  experimented  upon  him,  and 
who  unconsciously  imparted  to  him  the  substance  of  his 
earlier  visions  and  recorded  them  as  they  were  re-collected 
and  "revealed"  objectively  by  his  subject.  Swedenborg 
founded  a  system  of  Christian  theology  ;  Andrew  Jack- 
son Davis  founded  what  he  called  "The  Harmonial  Phi- 
losophy," an  effort  to  S5^stemize  a  philosophical  Spiritu- 
alism ;  both  of  these  seers  claimed  to  have  obtained  the 
alleged  facts  upon  which  they  founded  their  systems  by 
personal  observations  in  the  spirit  world  ;  but  the  alleged 
facts  of  the  one  contradict  those  of  the  other,  and  there- 
fore one  or  the  other  was  mistaken — probably  both.  The 
"Heaven  and  Hell"  of  Swedenborg  is  far  different  from 
the  "Summerland"  of  A.  J.  Davis,  and  the  theology  of 
the  one  is  utterly  inharmious  with  the  "  philosophy"  of 
of  the  other.  And  so  with  all  the  revelations  of  all  the 
other  psychics  or  seers,  from  Mohammed  and  John  the 
Revelator  to  the  spiritual  mediums  of  today. 

The  descriptions  they  profess  (often  sincerely)  to  give 
of  life  "over  there"  are,  I  am  convinced,  obtained  from 
suggestions  they  have  subconsciously  accepted  over  here. 

§  93. — KNOCKING   DOWN   A   MAN   OF   STRAW. 

It  is  easy  to  mis-state  an  opponent's  arg-ument  and 
then  demolish  the  counterfeit.  Over  and  over,  I  have 
heard  and  read  the  statement  that  the  "materialist  says 
that  mind  is  the  product  of  the  brain — the  brain  secretes 


FROM  THE  STANDPOINT  OP  SCIENCE      155 

thougfht  as  the  liver  secretes  bile"!  This  charge  can 
come  only  from  one  either  very  ig-norant  or  brazenly  dis- 
honest, for  no  well-informed  believer  in  the  theory  that 
mind  is  the  function  of  the  brain,  and  thought,  emotion, 
sentiment,  etc.,  are  brain  products,  would  assert  that  the 
"  brain  secretes  thought  as  the  liver  secretes  bile."  Ev- 
eryone who  knows  even  the  a-b-c's  of  physiology  knows 
that  the  word  "secretion  "is  a  name  for  only  one  class  of 
phy^iolcgical  functions — the  functions  of  certain  glands 
and  membranes.  The  brain  is  neither  a  gland  nor  a 
membrane  ;  the  products  of  secretion  are  fluids  or  semi- 
fluids,  but  mind  and  thought  are  neither  of  these. 

Physiological  functions  are  many  and  extremely  varied 
in  character,  and  the  same  is  true  of  physiological  pro- 
ducts. Note  the  extreme  dissimilarity  between  muscular 
motion  and  nerve  sensation  ;  between  seeing  and  hear- 
ing ;  between  breathing  and  mastication  ;  between  secre- 
tion of  milk  and  the  act  of  smelling,  etc.  Compare  the 
products  of  functioning  :  saliva  with  locomotion  ;  fat  or 
oil  with  a  feeling  of  pain  or  pleasure;  bone  with  blood  ; 
brain  with  finger-nails,  etc.  It  would  be  just  as  logical 
to  say  that  the  eye  secretes  sight,  the  muscles  secrete  mo- 
tion ;  the  tongue  secretes  speech,  '*as  the  liver  secretes 
bile,"  as  to  say  *'the  brain  secretes  thought  as  the  liver 
secretes  bile." 

To  mj'  mind  it  is  no  more  mysterious  or  improbable  that 
thought  is  a  product  of  brain  than  that  the  sense  of  touch 
is  the  product  of  sensory  nerves  ;  or,  than  that  the  move- 
ment of  my  arm,  hand  and  fingers  in  setting  this  type  is  a 
product  of  muscle  in  combination  with  motor  nerves  and 
brain.  No:  although  mind  is  a  function  of  brain  and 
thought  a  product  of  that  function,  the  brain  does  ?wl 


156  A   FUTURE  LIFE? 

"secrete "it  as  the  liver  does  bile,  and  that  product,  bile 
is  no  more  like  thought  than  it  is  like  muscular  motion. 

§  94. — ANOTHER   BASELKSS   OBJECTION 

Is  this  :  ''  Immediately  after  death  the  brain  is  in  no  way 
different,  organically,  physicall}^  or  chemically,  from  its 
condition  immediately  before  ;  if  thought  is  a  product  of 
brain,  why  does  not  the  brain  continue  to  think  after 
death,  if  the  mind  or  soul  has  not  left  it  ?  "  There  is  no 
mystery  here.  First,  it  is  a  mere  assumption  that  the 
brain  structure  is  exactly  the  same  immediately  after  as 
as  it  was  before  death  ;  no  chemist  ever  analyzed,  and  no 
microscopist  ever  peered  into,  the  living  cells  of  a  think- 
ing brain,  and  therefore  no  exact  comparison  of  it  with  a 
dead  brain  can  be  made.  Second,  soundness  of  the  brain 
structure  is  not  the  only  condition  of  thought  production; 
oxygen  must  be  present  to  disintegrate  the  brain  structure, 
for  thought,  like  all  other  physiological  products,  is  a 
sequence  of  cell-dissolution.  The  surest — an  infallible — 
wa}^  to  extinguish  thinking  and  consciousness  is  to  stop 
the  breathing — and  death  always  does  that ! 

After  the  flame  of  a  candle  "goes  out"  because  oxy- 
gen of  the  air  has  been  shut  off  from  it,  the  candle  itself 
remains  as  before,  yet  no  light  is  produced.  Is  it  not 
as  logical  to  ask  what  becomes  of  the  flame  and  its  light 
when  the  "candle  goes  out"  as  to  ask  what  becomes  of 
the  soul — the  mind  and  its  thought  when  the  body  dies  ? 
Furthermore,  every  other  organ  and  function  of  the  body 
yields  a  froduct  of  some  kind  ;  in  compliance  with  this 
law,  what  does  brain  and  brain  action  produce  if  not 
mind,  including  thought,  sentiment,  emotion  etc.? 


CHAPTER  XI. 

SOME  MISCELLANEOUS  MATTERS. 

§96. — *' WEIGHING   THE   SOUL." 

TEN  THOUSAND  years  agro,  more  and  less,  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  had  in  their 
wonderfully  complicated  and  systemetized  mythologry  or 
relig-ion  a  symbolical  representation  of  the  g-ods  weigh- 
ing" on  a  balance  the  human  soul  after  the  death  of  the 
bod}^.  In  this  case  the  soul's  existence  was  not  ques- 
tioned, the  weighing  being  for  the  purpose  of  determin- 
ing the  moral  status  of  the  soul — a  detail  of  the  *' Great 
Judgment."  But  in  this  modern  day  certain  doctors,  self- 
styled  scientists,  more  familiar  with  the  weig-hingof  mal- 
medicaments  than  of  morals,  have  undertaken  to  weigh 
the  soul  for  the  purpose  of  proving  its  existence.  And 
they  report  that  their  experiments  in  weighing  a  large 
number  of  dying  persons  determine  that  "something,' 
weighing  an  ounce,  more  less,  "escapes"  from  the  body, 
at  the  exact  moment  of  death,  and  that  not  having  been 
able  to  detect  any  loss  of  the  known  bodily  constituents 
at  the  time,  they  conclude  that  the  "thing"  which  seems 
to  "escape"  is  the  human  "soul"! 

This  Jogic  reminds  me  of  some  boys  who  once  went  out 
to  hunt  "winged  bunnies,"  mythical  animals  described 
in  a  story  book  and  said  to  hide  in  hollow  logs  during  the 
day  and  come  out  in  the  evening  to  fly  out  of  sight  high 

[157] 


158  A   FUTURE  LIFE? 

up  in  the  sky.  They  found  a  hollow  log*  about  twenty 
feet  long-,  and  peering  into  one  end  they  could  see  nothing" 
within,  nor  see  lig"ht  througfh  the  hollow  thoug-h  the  hole 
was  open  at  both  ends  of  the  log".  Says  one  :  "That's  a 
mig"ht3^  g-ood  place  for  a  wing-ed  bunnie  to  stay  in  in  day- 
time," So  they  g"ot  a  long"  pole  and  tried  to  dislodge  the 
beast  they  had  decided  ought  to  be  within.  They  saw  no- 
thing" come  out  of  the  log",  but  now  (having"  dislodg-ed  the 
obstructing-  rotten  wood  with  their  pole)  they  could  see 
through  the  hollow  log.  So  they  went  home  and  told 
their  boy  friends  how  they  had  proved  that  there  were 
real  "winged  bunnies,"  for  they  saw  no  other  animal  run 
out  of  the  bunnie-house,  while  "something"  seemed,  un- 
seen, "to  escape" — it  could  only  be  a  real,  though  a  very 
light-weight,  "winged  bunnie"  ! 

These  doctors  have  "proved"  too  much  for  a  certain 
large  number  of  believers  in  the  existence  of  soul-entities. 
Their  experiments  on  animals  showed  that  "nothing" 
escapes  from  their  bodies  at  death — therefore  they  do  not 
have  souls;  and,  again,  their  discovered  "fact"  that  the 
soul  has  weight  "proves"  that  it  is  of  material  substance, 
which  is  "rank  materialism"!  Incidentally,  I  observe, 
their  experiments  "  prove  "  the  Christian  belief  correct, 
that  the  soul  has  wings;  for,  having  weight,  how  could 
it  otherwise  ascend  to  the  heaven  in  the  skies? 

I  can  scarcely  resist  the  great  temptation  to  say  here 
that  the  report  that  the  soul  weighs  only  an  ounce  or  two 
seems  to  confirm  common  observation  that  many  people, 
if  they  have  any  at  all,  have  very  "small  souls"  ! 

§  96. — THE   EVASIVE   EXPLANATION. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  immortality  there 
has  been   adopted   by  some  an  explanation  that,  to  my 


SOME  MISCELLANEOUS  MATTERS         159 

wa3^  of  thinking-,  is  simply  an  evasion  of  the  real  issue — 
an  explanation  which  all  accept  in  its  true  sphere,  with- 
out relinquishing"  their  belief  or  disbelief  in  a  conscious 
personal  future  life  connected  b}^  memory  with  this  life. 

This  explanation  is  a  favorite  one  with  some  who  have 
been  forced  by  facts  and  reason  to  give  up  their  belief  in  a 
literal  future  life,  but  who  wish  to  avoid  giving  a  shock 
to  the  prejudices  of  the  great  majority  bj^  a  plain,  uneva- 
sive,  unequivocal  declaration.  The  motive  may  be  com- 
mendable, but  science,  like  nature,  which  it  represents, 
is  severely  and  unfeelingl}^  exact,  and  sets  forth  the  ab- 
solute truth  utterly  regardless  of  consequences.  The  sci- 
entist inquires  as  to  what  is,  not  merely  as  to  what  g-ives 
him  no  pain.  The  dying-  philosopher  says  to  his  physi- 
cian, "Tell  me  truly,  is  this  death?"  He  does  not  ask  for 
an  equivocal  or  palliative  reply;  he  does  not  want  to  be 
merely  assured  that  '*  there  is  no  death" — his  common 
sense  as  well  as  his  science  teaches  him  that  death  is  as 
real  as  are  birth  and  life.  He  knows  that  the  simple  acts 
of  daily  self-abnegation  in  man's  association  with  man 
which  we  call  ethics  and  etiquette  are  but  expressions  of 
the  g-reat  biological  law  that  one  must  sacrifice  some  of 
his  self-interests,  including  his  life,  that  another  may  live. 
And  he  bravely  and  politely  steps  aside  and  lies  down  in 
the  grave  to  give  standing--room  for  his  brother. 

The  evasive  answer  to  the  great  question  is,  in  brief, 
this:  "We  are  immortal;  all  our  acts  will  continue  to 
affect  the  weel  or  wo  of  humanity  forever  :  we  shall  con- 
tinue to  live  in  the  memor}^  and  affections  of  our  friends 
and  posterity,  if  deserving."  This,  as  I  understand  them, 
is  the  kind  of  "immortality"  which  Dr.  Paul  Carus,  of 
of  the  Ope7i  Court  and  the  Monist,  believes  in,  and  my 
friend  Prof.  Thaddeus  B.  Wakeman  "knows"  is  the  only 


160  A   FUTURE  UFE? 

future  life,  as  he  says  ''correlation"  proves — for  he  as- 
sures me  that  "  a  little  more  'correlation'  might  save  you 
[me]  from  agnosticism."  (See  his  letter  in  the  Humani- 
tarian Revikw  for  July,  1907). 

Though  this  is  one  definition  of  the  word  immortality, 
it  is  not  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word,  but  a  secondf 
aery— poetic — one,  or  a  mere  rhetorical  figure  of  speech. 
It  does  not  answer  the  real  question  persistently  asked  by 
the  prosaic,  matter-of-fact  scientists  and  common-sense 
millions.     They  ask  : 

"Does  the  personality,  the  conscious  identity  and  the 
memory  of  the  events  and  the  friendships  of  this  life  con- 
tinue or  sometime  revive  after  the  death  and  disintegra- 
tion of  the  material  body?  "  And  they  demand  a  posi- 
tive, unevasive,  unequivocal,  unmabiguous  and  sincere 
answer — Yes,  No,  or  Unknown — with  the  facts  and  prin- 
ciples upon  which  the  answer  is  based  equally  explicit. 

As  the  judge  upon  the  bench  says  :  "Gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  what  is  your  verdict  ?"  What  is  the  answer  in  this 
ease?  Some  of  the  jurymen  would  answer  "Yes,"  some 
^'No,"  some,  "We  are  in  doubt,"  but  the  foreman  is 
bound  to  formally  answer,  regardless  of  his  own  personal 
decision,  "If  Your  Honor  please,  the  jury  fails  to  agree." 
We  have  heard  the  "Yes"  and  the  "No"  to  this  ques- 
tion, with  the  reasons  ;  let  us  now  hear  the  "Unknown." 

§  97. — THE    AGNOSTIC   VIEW. 

It  may  be  laid  down,  I  think,  as  a  true  general  principle 
that  he  who  knows  most  knows  how  little  he  knows,  and 
he  who  thinks  he  knows  much  has  not  learned  how  little 
he  actually  knows.  The  wise  man  is  modest;  the  fool 
is  deceived  by  his  own  ignorance  and  his  egotism.  Es- 
pecially rare  is  knowledge  of  what  the  future  may  bring 


SOME  MISCELLANEOUS  MATTERS         161 

to  pass.  No  person  knows,  even,  that  the  sun  will  rise 
tomorrow  as  usual  ;  for  aug-ht  we  know  it  migfht  ere  that 
time  explode  and  be  rent  into  impalpable  "star-dust,"  its 
volume  expanded  far  be3^ond  the  earth's  orbit. 

Much  that  we  say  we  know  is  rightly  so  expressed  if 
it  is  conditional.  We  can  onl}^  judge  of  the  future  by  the 
past;  that  which  has  hitherto  invariably  occurred  in  the 
field  of  human  observation  in  the  past  we  know  will  un- 
der the  same  conditions  occur  in  the  future,  and  we  may 
rig-htly  say  we  know  that  a  certain  event  will  occur  if  we 
include  the  provision  of  the  essential  conditions,  for  con- 
ditions are  laws  of  nature.  To  say  every  event  occurs  in 
conformity  to  natural  law  is  only  to  affirm  that  they  oc- 
cur according"  to  essential  conditions. 

What  do  we  know  about  conditions  essential  to  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  personality  after  bodily  death?  Do  we 
know  that  such  conditions  exist  ? — or  that  they  do  not 
exist  ?  Does  our  realm  of  observation  and  experience  in 
this  life  embrace  every  realm  of  existence  in  nature?  If 
not,  can  we  know  what  may  or  may  not  exist  outside  of 
the  field  of  our  observation  and  experience  ?  Have  we 
discovered  all  the  laws  of  nature  ?  Or  have  we  learned 
the  limitations  of  all  the  laws  we  have  discovered  ? 

What  is  agnosticism  ?  Many  of  its  opponents  ridicule 
agnostics  as  people  who  acknowledge  they  know  nothing. 
Such  a  charge  can  come  onl}"  from  one  who  is  ignorant 
of  the  modern  meaning  of  the  word — that  is,  of  the  limi- 
tations of  its  application  as  used  by  those  who  profess  to 
be  agnostic — or  from  one  who  is  dishonest  and  unfair  to- 
ward his  opponents  in  argument,  I  define  the  word  ag- 
nosticism thus:  The  belief  that  mankind  can  and  does 
kfioiv  nothing  as  to  what  may  or  may  not  exist  outside  of 
the  field  of  its  experience  and  observation  ;  that  what  we 


162  A   PUTURK  LIFE? 

learn  by  reasoning-  is  but  a  generalization  of  facts  within 
our  observation  and  experience  and  deductions  therefrom. 
Hence  the  agnostic  rejects  the  dogrna  that  man  can,  does 
or  ever  did,  obtain  any  knowledge  by  inspiration,  intui- 
tion or  supernatural  revelation  ;  and  accordingly  he  con- 
fesses that  he  does  not,  and  denies  that  anybody  else 
does,  know  that  there  exist  or  do  not  exist  invisible  beings 
C'g-ods")  superior  to  man,  and  confesses  that  he  does 
not,  and  denies  that  anybody  else  does,  know  that  men 
do  or  do  not  continue  to  live  after  bodily  death  as  invisi- 
ble, intang-ible  conscious  persons.  He  says  *'we  do  not 
know  of  these  thing's  ;  we  may  believe,  hope,  doubt  and 
disbelieve,  but  that  is  all." 

This  section  on  the  Agnostic  View  I  will  close  with  an 
exceedingly  appropriate  quotation  from  a  great  American 
Agnostic,  Col.  Robert  G.  Ingersoll  :  , 

"We  do  not  know — we  cannot  say,  whether  death  is  a 
wall  or  a  door — the  beginning-  or  the  end  of  a  da}^ ;  the 
spreading  of  pinions  to  soar,  or  the  folding  forever  of 
wings  ;  the  rise  or  the  set  of  a  sun,  or  an  endless  life 
that  brings  rapture  and  love  to  everyone." 

This  is  the  view  of  the  agnostic  expressed  in  the  Ian* 
guage  of  the  poet. 

§  98. — PSYCHIC   RKSKARCH   SOCIETY'S    CONCLUSION. 

Many  of  my  correspondents  have  kindly  referred  me 
to  the  proceedings  of  the  Society  for  Psychic  Research, 
of  London,  and  its  American  Branch,  and  suggesting  to 
me  that  these  SDcieties  have  a  membership  largely  of  sci- 
entists— i-  e.,  men  of  more  or  less  eminence  in  the  various 
branches  of  natural  science  and  familiar,  in  theory  and 
practice,  with  the  justly  much-esteemed  "modern-science 
method  of  investigation" — and  that  their  very  extensive 


SOMK  MISCELLANEOUS  MATTERS         163 

research  in  psychical  phenomena  had  resulted  in  convinc- 
ing: many  if  not  all  of  the  members  that  a  personal  spirit 
life  after  death  of  the  body  is  a  demonstrable  fact. 

In  reply,  I  beg-  permission  to  say  that  I  have  been  fa- 
miliar with  the  Society's  work  for  the  past  eig"ht  years, 
through  careful  reading-  of  its  official  reports  as  well  as 
certain  unofficial  reports  of  some  of  its  more  eminent  mem- 
bers, I  have  not  space  here  to  comment  at  leng-th  upon 
the  Society's  methods,  inferences  and  deductions,  but  I 
will  make  a  brief  general  statement  of  what  I  conceive 
to  be  some  very  grave  defects  in  the  experimentation  and 
the  reasoning  of  its  investigators. 

To  do  this  concretely,  I  will  take  for  comment  the  re- 
port of  a  recent  interview  by  John  Elfreth  Watkins,  pub- 
lished as  a  syndicate  magazine  article.  Prof.  James  H, 
H3^slop,  "late  of  the  faculty  of  the  Columbia  University, 
and  now  secretary  and  active  head  of  the  new  American 
Society  for  Psychical  Research,"  was  the  gentleman  Mn 
Watkins  interviewed.  He  is  an  eminent  psychologfist, 
and  has  long  been  prominently  active  in  connection  with 
the  late  F.  W.  H,  Myers,  Dr.  Hodgson,  Georg-e  Pelham, 
Stainton  Moses  and  other  well-known  active  researchers 
of  the  older  Societies.  I  do  this  not  because  Prof.  Hys- 
lop  is  p.articulary  vulnerable,  but  because  he  is  an  able 
representative  of  those  Societies,  including  the  new  one, 
and  because  in  this  interview  he  gives  utterance  to  the 
most  recent  reports  on  psychic  research  and  in  which  the 
objectionable  features  I  wish  to  point  out  are  shown  to 
be  still  in  existence. 

First,  Prof.  Hyslop  (and  the  others)  fail  to  recognize 
the  psychological  principle  that  telepathy,  mental  induc- 
tion, pertains  not  to  the  domain  of  objective  or  conscious 
mentation,  but  to  that  of  the  subjective,  subconscious 


164  A   FUTURE  LIFE? 

or  reflexive  mentation.  Hence,  while  he  carefully  pro- 
vides safeguards  agfainst  any  objective  communication 
of  information  from  the  "sitters"  to  the  medium,  he 
makes  no  attempt  to  prevent  information  being:  obtained 
by  the  medium  from  the  sitters,  himself  or  his  stenogra- 
pher, by  subconscious  mental  induction,  or  "telepathy." 
This  is  evidenced  by  the  following  words  of  the  Profes- 
sor himself : 

"I  wore  a  black  mask  covering  my  face  from  my  fore- 
head to  below  my  beard  when  I  began  to  visit  Mrs.  Piper. 
I  remained  masked  in  this  way  for  a  year,  and  thus  hid  m}^ 
identity  from  her  until  after  the  principal  results  of  the 
experiment  had  been  obtained.  But  in  these  new  experi- 
ments I  am  not  the  'sitter.'  Strangers  are  introduced  to 
the  mediums,  but  not  until  the  latter  have  gone  into  the 
trance  state  and  their  eyes  have  been  hidden  in  the  head 
rest  described.  I  simply  sit  in  the  room  and  observe  the 
experiment.  There  is  also  present,  invariably,  a  stenogra- 
pher, who  makes  notes,  absolutely  verbatim,  of  every- 
thing which  occurs.  The  sitters  are  generally  selected 
from  a  class  that  have  shown  some  psychic  tendencies. 
They  are  always  taken  out  of  the  room  before  the  medi- 
ums come  out  of  the  trance  state.  Their  personalities 
are  never  known  to  the  medium." 

Prof.  Hyslop  could  scarcely  have  designed  better  plans 
for  having  himself  deceived  than  those  he  here  describes. 
All  of  his  supposed  precautions  but  helped  to  establish 
essential  conditions  for  subconscious  mental  induction  be- 
tween the  medium  and  the  sitter  ;  for  suppression  of  the 
activity  of  the  senses — the  organs  of  objective  perception 
— is  exactly  what  is  required  to  enable  subjective  percep- 
tion to  more  perfectly  supercede  the  objective.  This  is 
the  reason  for  the  dark  circle,  quietude  and  harmonious 
thought  of  spiritualistic  seances.     When  objective  men- 


SOME  MISCELLANEOUS  MATTERS         165 

tation  ebbs,  subjective  mentation  flows,  and  vice  versa. 
It  is  a  gross  error  for  a  ps}  chologist  to  mistake  5?^5-con- 
sciousness  for  ?^«consciousness.  The  entranced  psychic 
is  not  ?^«conscious,  but  subjectively  ^j'^^jrconscious,  and 
exceedingrly  suggestible.  Indeed  the  suggestibility  is  so 
exaggerated  that  Prof.  Hyslop's  mask  and  attempt  to  con- 
ceal his  identit}'  would  be  accepted  suggestively  and  act- 
ed upon,  not  to  betray  him,  but  to  consistently  co-incide 
with  him  in  maintaining  his  "part"  or  role — for  these 
psychic  performances  are  identical  with  those  of  theat- 
rical acting,  and  every  great  histrionic  genius  is  a  psy- 
chic and  always  in  a  ps)xhic  condition  when  truly  imper- 
sonating. And  so  of  the  "strangers"  so  carefully  "in- 
troduced" and  taken  out  of  the  room  while  the  medium 
is  in  the  trance  state.  The3'^  were  faithfully  accepted  by 
the  star  actress  in  their  role  of  strangers  bearing  assumed 
names  ;  nevertheless  she  knew  their  parts  as  well  as  her 
own,  just  as  Juliet  on  the  stage  knows  the  part  of  Ro- 
meo and  his  real  personality  as  well.  Romeo  is  fully  con- 
scious that  off  the  boards  his  Juliet  is  Miss  Mary  Jones, 
"  best  girl "  of  John  Smith  of  Pumpkinville.  And  so  the 
medium  knows  the  sitters  are  only  acting,  and  while  rec- 
ognizing them  as  "strangers"  in  the  play,  their  real  off- 
stage, objective  personality  is  of  no  consequence  to  her ; 
her  part  is  to  assume  any  personalitj"  they,  consciously  or 
subconsciousl3^  suggest  to  her ;  and  by  virtue  of  her  psy- 
chic state  of  exag-gerated  suggestibility,  through  mental 
induction,  she  reproduces  such  "secret"  facts  of  that  per- 
sonality as  are  known,  conscioush'  or  even  only  subcon- 
sciousl)%  to  the  sitters  and  interested  observers. 

Note  that  I  use  the  word  "induction"  as  used  by  elec- 
tricians, and  that  I  do  not  consider  the  "play"  of  the  psy- 
chic anv  more  immoral  than  that  of  the  actor. 


166  A   FUTURE  LIFE? 

The  Professor  states  that  he  selects  persons  of  psychic 
tendencies  as  sitters — exactly  the  'thing-  to  do  to  supply 
conditions  favorable  to  successful  mental  induction. 

And  furthermore  :  Prof.  Hyslop  is  too  positive  in  his 
statements  that  he  '*had  never  heard  of"  certain  events 
of  which  a  medium  told  him.  He  seems  not  to  be  aware 
of  the  fact  that  information  received  **telepathically," 
i.  e.,  by  mental  induction,  from  a  sitter,  interested  specta- 
tor or  others,  by  a  psychic,  receives  it,  not  from  that  per- 
son's objective  or  conscious  thoug-ht  or  active  memory,  but 
from  his  subjective  or  subconscious  thoug-ht  or  dormant 
memory — the  same  source  from  which  one  re-collects  or 
recalls  something  to  conscious  memory.  And  one  can 
seldom  be  positively  certain  that  he  has  never  heard  or 
read  a  thing-  because  unable  to  recollect  it.  How  often 
we  are  unable  to  recollect  things  that  we  know  we  have 
heard — the  name  of  a  friend,  title  of  a  book,  etc.!  And 
who  has  not  re-read  a  book  or  a  letter  and  found  things 
he  cannot  remember  ever  to  have  read  therein  before  ? 

Asked  if  the  immortality  of  the  soul  had  been  proven 
to  his  satisfaction  by  his  experiments,  he  replied: 

**My  position  is  that  the  only  acceptable  hypothesis 
which  can  account  for  certain  phenomena  that  I  have 
observed  is  that  of  survival  after  death.  The  balance  of 
evidence,  so  far,  leaves  the  spiritistic  hypothesis  as  the 
only  rational  one  to  which  we  can  hold  at  present." 

Note  that  the  Professor  did  not  say  "proved  to  my  sat- 
isfaction," but  he  calls  it  a  "hypothesis"  to  be  held  only 
tentatively.  And  this  may  be  accepted  as  a  fair  statement 
of  the  general  conclusion,  at  present,  of  the  societies  for 
psychical  research. 

[Error— page  157  :  "§96"  should  read  §95.] 


CHAPTER    XII. 

RECAPITULATTO:Nr    AXX)    COIN^CLUSION. 

§  99. — RECAPITULATION. 

In  the  Introductory  chapter  I  defined  the  real  question 
as,  not  simply  is  man  destined  to  a  future  life  ?  but  does 
the  -personality^  consciousness  of  identity,  memory  of  the 
events  and  friendships  of  this  life  and  the  recog'nition  of 
friends  continue  in  a  future  life  ?  It  was  shown  that  there 
are  three  principal  theories  of  future  life  :  1,  A  life  of  the 
same  body  after  resurrection  ;  2,  a  life  of  the  soul  or  spirit 
by  reincarnations  ;  3,  an  independent  spirit  life,  the  ma- 
terial body  being-  abandoned  at  its  death  forever. 

It  was  shown  in  chapter  ii.  that  the  resurrection  theory 
is  the  sequence  of  an  ancient  poetic  fancy  that  all  living 
things  'Mied  "  in  the  **  fall  of  the  year,"  were  buried  in  the 
grave  of  winter,  and  were  resurrected  at  the  vernal  equi- 
nox, the  "  spring  of  the  year" — the  springing-up  season  ; 
and  afl&rming,  by  a  sort  of  poetic  logic,  analogy  between 
this  natural  phenomenon  and  that  of  the  course  of  a  hu- 
man life,  the  inference  was  drawn  that  the  body  of  man 
would  be  resurrected  at  a  certain  epoch  in  time.  That 
science  demonstrates  the  impossibility  of  any  resurrection 
of  the  material  body  except  as  the  elements  of  other  and 
succeeding  plant,  animal  and  human  bodies — a  real,  sci- 
entific re-carnation,  shown  in  chapter  iii.  to  be  the  fact 
basis  of  the  visionary  theory  of  re-incarnation. 

In  ch.  iv.  I  h-ave  discussed  the  spiritistic  theory  of  some 
N.  Testament  writers  and  various  metaphysical  cults;  and 
in  ch.  v.,  spiritism  as  a  working  h3^pothesis  was  discussed 
and  its  inadequacy,  I  think,  demonstrated;  this  involved 
a  quite  thorough  treatment  of  free  will,  determinism,  and 


168  A   FUTURE  TJFE  ? 

persistence  of  motion  vs.  force,  spirit,  or  other  uncaused 
cause  of  natural  phenomena.  In  ch.  vi,  the  dualistic  me- 
chanical theory  was  briefly  commented  upon  as  a  sophis- 
tical an  alog-y ;  and  Prof.  Haeckel's  alleged  monism  was 
pretty  thoroug^hly  discussed  and  shown,  I  believe,  to  be, 
after  all,  not  scientific  monism,  but  hypothetical  dualism. 
New  Thoug"ht  theories  were  discussed  in  ch.  vii,,  and 
their  mysticism  and  vagaries  briefly  pointed  out,  with  a 
quite  extensive  critical  analysis  and  refutation  of  the  fa- 
mous hypotheses  of  the  late  Thomson  Jay  Hudson,  LL.D. 
Does  Spiritualism  demonstrate  a  future  life?  was  given  a 
lengthy  treatment  in  ch.  viii.,  on  a  basis  of  facts  of  rec- 
ord and,  especially,  of  the  author's  experience,  leading  to 
a  decidedly  negative  answer. 

In  ch.  ix.,  was  critically  considered  some  features  of 
so-called  philosophy  of  a  future  life,  showing  fallacies  of 
deductive  reasoning  as  a  means  of  obtaining  proof  of  im- 
mortality, and  the  futility  of  arguments  based  on  human 
desire,  consensus  and  universality  of  opinion,  moral  ne- 
cessity, etc.  The  question  of  a  future  life  from  scientific 
standpoints  were  quite  fully  discussed  in  a  long  chapter, 
X.,  under  the  sub-headings,  (a)  the  physical,  (b)  chem- 
ical, (c)  physiological,  and  (d)  the  psychological  points 
of  view.  In  ch.  xi.  is  embraced  criticisms  of  the  evasive 
explanation,  a  statement  of  the  agnostic  view,  and  criti- 
cal remarks  on  some  of  the  methods  of  the  Societies  for 
Psychical  Research,  with  a  demonstration  of  the  hypo- 
thetical and  tentative  character  of  their  principal  common 
conclusion,  as  represented  by  Prof.  James  H.  Hyslop. 

§  100. — THE   CONCLUSION. 

In  this  quite  comprehensive  investigation  of  the  alleged 
evidences  of  a  future  life,  I  find  absolutely  no  facts  upon 
which  can  be  based  a  knowledge  that  a  future  life  is  a 
certainty,  or  that  it  is  a  probability  or  even  a  possibility, 
and  yet  this  does  not  positively  -prove  that  it  is  not. 

And  I  find  no  evidence  that  a  future  life  would  be  be- 
neficent or  belief  \n  it  an  incentive  to  right  conduct.  As 
long  as  one  has  even  one  more  breath  to  draw,  a  real  "fu- 
ture life"  is  before  him  and  he  should  act  accordingly! 


^IBR^^^ 


The  Humanitarian  Review 

A  High-Oass  Monthly  Magazine  Devoted  to 

Rationalism,  Science  of  Mind  and  Ethical  Culture. 

Singleton  W.  Davis,  Editor  and  Publisher. 

Price  10c.  SI  a  3'ear.  854  E.  Lee  St.,  Los  Ang-eles,  Gal. 


The  Humanitarian  Review  is  a  magazine  devoted  to 
the  study  of  Psychology,  Comparative  Religion,  the 
mythical  character  of  the  Bible  and  m3^thical  origin 
of  Christianity,  Ethical  Culture,  Secularism  in  the 
Public  Schools  and  all  departments  of  Government — 
National,  State  and  Municipal — Liberalism  in  Relig- 
ion, and  especially  to 

Constructive,  Concrete, 

Practical,  Organized  and 

Aggressive  Propagandism  of 

^  Truth  as  Revealed  by  Modem  Science. 

The  Review  labors  for  the  emancipation  of  the 
human  mind  from  the  debasing  thralldom  of  Super- 
stition, Supernaturalism  and  Mysticism,  and  for  the 
up-building  of  an  enlightened,  ethico-scientific  life.  It 
is  radical  without  being  rabid,  and  aims  to  refute  the 
errors  of  men  by  reason  rather  than  ridicule  or  acri- 
monious disputation.  It  stands  for  Virtue,  Morality 
and  Nobility  of  Character  as  the  best  safeguards  for 
this  life  and  preparation  for  any  possible  future  life. 

^  Printing  and  Publishing 

854  E.  LEE  St.  LOS  ANGELES,  CAL. 
All  Kinds  of  Commercial  Joii  (Minting.    Pamptilet  Work  a  Specialty 

Singleton  "W.  Davis,  Proprietor. 


GOOD  BOOKS 

PUBLISHED  AND  FOR  SALE  BY 

Singleton  W.  Davis, 

854  E.  Lee  St.,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

SKETCHES    OE   THE 

Scientific  Dispensation 

—  OF  — 

A  NEW  RELIGION. 

BY   SINGLETON  W.  DAVIS. 
A  Pamphlet  of  64  pages.     Price,  15  cts. ;  by  mail,  postpaid. 

.  Contents. — Ch.  1 — Relation  of  Reason  and  Science  to  Relig-ion; 
Ch.  2 — Ps3^cholog-y  and  the  Problem  of  Immortality;  Ch.  3 — Nature  of 
the  Relig-ious  Elements;  Ch.  4 — Morality  and  Relation  of  Ethics  to 
Relig-ion;  Ch.  5 — Evolution  of  Religion;  Ch.  6 — Agencies  Effecting- 
the  Relig-ious  Revolution;  Ch.  7 — Concluding:  Sketch — Summary. 

"Well  worthy  of  perusal.  Taking-  his  definitions  of  religion,  he 
is  not  far  out  of  the  way,  thoug-h  I  do  not  admit  all  of  his  conclusions. 
But  he  presents  his  matter  in  an  original  wa3^,  and  makes  relig-ion 
harmonious  with  reason  and  prog-ress." — The  late  Sanmel P.  Piitnayn. 

"  Full  of  scholarly  thrusts  at  popular  fallacies. . .  .  Eminently  'full  of 
meat.'. .  full  of  brilliant  thought  most  ably  expressed." — The  Esotej'L. 

CHAEDEO  BABYLONIAN 
CIVILIZATION. 

Legends  of  Creation,  Flood,  etc.    Tablet  Inscriptions,  His- 
tory, Religion,  Literature,  etc.,  etc.,  etc. 

BY   JUDGE   PARISH   B.  LADD. 

Published  at  the  office  of  the  Humanitarian  Review. 

Pamphlet,  fine,  heavy,  laid  antique  paper,  clear  print.    Price  10  cts. 


A  UNIVERSAL  MONISTIC 
ALLIANCE 

-  THESES  FOR  THE  ORGANIZATION  OF  MONISM. 

AN    ADDRESS 

To  the  International  Congress  of  Freethinkers  at  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  Oct.,  1 904. 

BY    ERiSrST    HAECKEL 

Of  the  University  of  Jena,  Germany. 

A  pamphlet  of  12  pages  and  cover^  well -printed  on 
fine,  heavy  paper,  price  5  cents — by  mail  6  cents. 

This  address  consists  of  thirty  concise  theses  on 
the  Theory  of  Monism  and  Practice  of  what  the  au- 
thor chooses  to  call  the  "Monistic  Rational  Religion." 
Those  who  read  Prof.  Wakeman's  lecture  on  Science 
is  Rel^'gion:  the  Religion  of  Monism,  should  read  this 
Address  first  and  in  connection  with  it.    Both  for  15c. 

SCIEiSrCE  IS  RELIGION: 

THE  MOXISTIC  RELIGIOjN^ 

A  Lecture  before  the  Manhattan  Liberal  Club  of  New 
York,  on  his  70th  Birthday,  Dec.  23,  304  Era  of  Sci- 
ence and  Man  (C.  E.  1904),  as  "The  Conclusion  of 
the  Present  Year  on  The  Important  Matters," 

BY   THADDEUS   BURR   WAKEMAN. 

(Professor  of  Law,  Sociolog-y  and  Applied  Science  in  L.  U.  O.) 

A  pamphlet  of  44  pages  and  cover,  good,  antique 
book  paper  and  clear  print ;  price,  10  cents.  Pub- 
lished at  the  office  of  the  Humanitarian  Review. 

This  book  is  an  execellent  one  to  read  in  connection 
with  Prof.  Haeckel's  Universal  Monistic  Alliance. 


THAT  "SAFE-SIDE"  ARGUMENT. 

BY  J.  O.  STEPHENSON. 

A  lively  discussion  of  the  old,  last  resort  of  the  Christian 
when  all  of  the  other  props  of  his  shakey  air-castle  theolog-y 
have  been  knocked  out,  viz:  "O  well,  I'd  rather  be  on  'the 
safe  side  ;'  if  the  Bible  is  true  I'll  be  saved  if  I  am  a  believer, 
and  if  there  is  no  hell  or  future  life  I'll  be  just  as  well  off  as 
the  unbeliever."  Kead  this  booklet  and  g"et  some  good  points 
on  how  to  meet  this  "slrg-ument."     Price  10c. 

ETERNITY  OF  the  EARTH 

Electricity  the  Universal  Force. 

By  Daistel  K.  Ten^key. 

A  New  Book  of  105  pages,  beautifully  printed  on  fine 
paper  and  handsomely  bound  in  cloth,  price  50c. 

THE  CHRIST  STORY: 

THE   FOUNDATION   DEFECTIVE. 

BY  W.  J.  DEAN. 
Published  by  the  Author,  and  for  sale  at  the  REVIEW  office. 

Paper  cover,  24  larg"e,  closely-printed  pag-es;  price  10c. 

I'  i* 

KNOW   THYSELF:    A  Lecture  before  the 
Liberal  Leag-ue  of  Minneapolis,  Minn. 

BY  C.  W.  G.  WITHEE. 

A  very  able  and  interesting  discussion,  valuable  to 
every  liberal  thinker.  Pamphlet  of  37  pages,  beauti- 
fully printed  on  heavy  book  paper;  price  15c. 

BUDDHISM  OR  CHRISTIANITY:  WHICH? 
A  Lecture  by  C.  W.  G.  WiTHEK. 
The  ancient  theolog-y  is  natural,  the  modern,  artificial. 
Booklet  of  64  pages,  with  portrait  of  the  author;  paper 
cover;  price  15c.,  by  mail,  postage  free. 


c 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any  ' 

University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(415)642-6233 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


DUE  NRLF  JUL  23  1987 

— mz^Qr 


I o     I ouo I 


/ 


/ 


